So I really love how China Mike Glyer cherry-picked the excerpts that he quoted from my last blog post, leaving out how I said that it’s important to give people the benefit of the doubt, or how you can’t take diversity statements at face value because of all the elitist signalling language. But the thing that I especially love is the way he characterized all of what I said as an “opportunity to learn from a professional why he’s self-rejecting from these short fiction markets.”
No, That’s Not Self-Rejection
There are so many things wrong with the phrase “self-rejection.” On its face, it sounds empowering, but the underlying assumption is that submitting your short stories to the traditional markets is your best/only option, and therefore you’d be a fool not to follow that path. Is that really an empowering message? Or is it actually more empowering—not to mention, straightforward—to say that it’s not you rejecting yourself, but you rejecting them?
For a long time, though, I really did believe that choosing not to submit a story to a high-paying market was tantamount to rejecting my own story. Even as an indie author, I still believed that for a short story to be successful, it had to be traditionally published first.
That was the thinking that informed my old short story strategy. Submit to the traditional markets first, and don’t self-publish until all of the high-paying professional markets have been exhausted, or (hopefully) until the exclusivity period of your contract wears off. You might spend years sending your story out to the markets, only to find that self-publishing is the only way to get it out into the world, but at least you have the moral victory of knowing you didn’t “self-reject.” Except, in a world where it’s possible to be your own publisher, you did reject your own story all those years, simply by choosing to keep it on submission instead of publishing it yourself!
To be fair, when it comes to short stories, self-publishing and traditional publishing are not mutually exclusive. And years of experience with self-publishing short stories has taught me that it’s very difficult to earn significant money with them. As I put it a couple of months ago:
…short stories can be useful to do just about every other thing except make money selling them directly. If you price the singles at $2.99, you might sell as many as one or two per year, making less than $5. If you price them at 99¢, you may sell as many as a dozen per year, if you’re lucky—again, making less than $5. I didn’t have much luck getting bundles of 3-5 to sell, but larger collections of 10 to 12 stories do occasionally sell, and at a decent enough rate that I’m earning more on those stories than I would if I’d sold them individually as singles. But short story collections don’t sell anywhere near as well as novels.
So if you can expect to sell a short story to a high-paying market in a reasonable period of time, it certainly makes sense to put it out on submission instead of self-publishing it first. But as I’ve established in the last two posts, when most of the high-paying markets have gone totally woke, that changes the equation—especially if you are a straight white male who refuses to bend the knee.
To review, here are the potential benefits of submitting to the traditional short story markets first:
- The pay.
- Marketing.
- Prestige and reputation.
- Networking.
- Awards and SFWA membership, if you care about that. I don’t.
And here are the potential drawbacks:
- Lost time.
- Lost time in exclusivity.
- Lost time in submission.
- Lost time not submitting simultaneously.
- Lost time running out of open markets.
In short, the biggest potential drawback is all of that lost time where you could have self-published that story, but didn’t. Tell me again how that isn’t self-rejection?
Costs and Benefits of Self-Publishing (and How Wokeness Changes the Equation)
So if you can’t really expect to make any money self-publishing short stories, what good are they anyway?
In my previous post, I compared short stories to pawns in the game of chess. The pawn is the weakest piece in the game, but many chess masters still consider it the “soul of the game,” not because of what each piece individually can do, but what they can accomplish when taken together. A strong pawn structure is key to both openings and midgame strategy, and in the endgame, pawns become critically important as they threaten to advance to the final rank, where they can be queened.
Short stories are similar to pawns in this way. Taken individually, they’re not particularly significant, and if you’ve only written or published one or two of them, they’re probably not going to have a huge impact on your career. But when you have a bunch of them and get them to work together, they can build your career (not to mention, help you develop your craft) quite effectively. And there’s always the chance that you can get one optioned for film, just like advancing a pawn to the back rank.
About a year ago, I did something very unconventional and made all of my short story singles free. Here was my thinking behind that decision:
As a short story reader, I’m already used to paying for anthologies—and I’m more likely than other readers to buy them, since I’m the kind of reader who seeks out short stories. So if I pick up a handful of free short stories from an author and come to really enjoy her work, I’m already primed to buy her collections when I finish each story—and that makes the backmatter of each free single the best place for her to advertise her collections.
It’s a bit like first-in-series free, except instead of the one free book pointing to the rest of the series, there’s a bunch of free short stories all pointing to the same one (or two or three) collections. The typical reader is probably going to need to read a few of an author’s short stories anyways to really become a fan, so making all of the stories free could really be the way to go.
Of course, the big downside to this as an author is that you probably can’t sell reprint rights to the stories that are available as free singles. Why would an editor buy your story for their publication if it’s already available for free? So you would have to make the singles free for a limited time, if selling the stories to the reprint markets is part of your strategy.
But if you’re going to eventually bundle those stories into a collection, that’s not really a problem. Publish them as free singles as soon as the rights revert back to you, and then take down the singles when you have enough of them to put into a collection.
In the past several months since embarking on this experiment, I’m happy to report that it’s been a success! Not only have these free short story singles brought in new readers by giving them a wider sample of my work, but they’ve also been quite effective at building engagement among my newsletter subscribers and driving sales of my other works.
So here are the benefits I’ve seen by publishing free short story singles:
- Marketing. The free short story singles are great marketing tools because the cost to try them out is minimal, not only in terms of price but in terms of time.
- Discoverability. Nothing is quite as good at getting your name out there as a free story.
- Name recognition. They say the average person has to see your brand at least seven times before it starts to stick. By putting a bunch of short stories out there that readers can pick up for free, it helps my name to stick with them.
- Engagement. My short story singles are some of my most—and best—reviewed ebooks. This is something I genuinely didn’t expect, but it’s helped to boost the effectiveness of everything else.
- Converting casual readers into fans. This has also been a pleasant surprise. Every time I send out a newsletter plugging one of my free short story singles—even one that’s been out for a while—I see an uptick in sales of my other books, as well as an uptick in fanmail from readers who credit the short stories for really turning them onto my work.
- Regularly putting out new work. This is potentially huge. At the end of the day, nothing else is as good at selling your books as publishing the next book. Ideally, all those books would be novels, but since I’m not the kind of writer who can put out a new novel every month, short stories can pick up the slack—especially if they’re free.
There are still a lot of things that I still want to tweak, both to drive organic newsletter subscribers and to drive sales of my short story collections, but in terms of overall strategy I think I’ve got the self-publishing end down pretty good. So what are the drawbacks?
Because most of the high-paying short story markets only purchase first publication rights, the cost is that you give up what you could have gotten by going with the traditional markets first. But if all of those markets have gone too far woke, that changes the equation considerably:
- The Pay. If all but a handful of the higher paying markets have gone woke and are therefore off the table, it doesn’t make sense to hold out for the money—nor does it make sense to make pay rates the deciding factor in whether or not to submit. If you have the time on your publishing schedule to send it out, great! Go for it! But don’t let the hope of a couple hundred bucks keep you from putting it out yourself.
- Marketing. If a market has gone woke, then it’s reasonable to assume that its readers and supporters have also gone woke. Since that’s not my target audience, it doesn’t make sense to hold out for getting published, no matter how large their readership or subscriber base. In fact, publication with a woke market may actually hurt me by turning off the very non-woke readers that I’m hoping to reach.
- Prestige and reputation. Same as above. If a market has gone woke, their reputation precedes them for both good and ill. Better to know my target audience and stay true to them than to seek honors from those who insist I bend the knee.
- Networking. If my predictions are correct and the culture is starting to shift decisively against everything woke, then the writers and editors I ought to be networking with are largely working on passion projects and semi-pro startups, not the established markets.
Revised Short Story Strategy
With all of that in mind, here is my new short story strategy:
Stage Zero: Put the Story on the Self-Publishing Schedule
The goal here is to publish something new consistently every month. Every time I write a short story, I immediately put it on the publishing schedule for a month where I don’t have a novel or a bundle already scheduled.
At a minimum, I should have enough stories to fill out the publishing schedule for at least the next six months. That way, if one of them sells to a traditional market, I can bump all the other ones forward, or have time to write something new. And ideally, I should fill out the schedule for the next 12 to 18 months, in order to have more time to put new stories on submission.
But unlike before, I’m not going to wait until a story exhausts all the potential markets before I self-publish it. If the story hasn’t sold yet to a traditional market and it’s slotted to be self-published next month, self-publishing takes precedence.
Stage One: Submit to the Traditional Markets
Before, my plan was to submit to all of the available markets that paid at least 5¢ per word, starting at the highest paying ones and working my way down until all of them were exhausted. But since most of those markets have gone incurably woke and it no longer makes sense to hold out for the pay, I’m now willing to submit to any market that pays at least 1¢ per word.
Since time is the key factor here—and the most relevant cost—instead of starting with the highest paying markets and working my way down, I’ll prioritize markets that allow simultaneous submissions and hit them all up at about the same time. Of course, if the story sells, I’ll promptly inform all of the other markets and withdraw my story. The same holds true if the story is still out for submission when I self-publish it.
For markets that allow simultaneous submissions, I’ll submit to any market that has an average wait time of 90 days or less, but for markets that do not allow simultaneous submissions, I’ll only send my story to them if their average wait time is 45 days or less. Again, time is the key factor here, and the most relevant cost. If a market can’t turn around my submission in less than six weeks, and still demands that I give them the exclusive right to consider my story, free of charge, I’m probably better off submitting elsewhere.
Stage Two: Self-Publish as a Free Short Story Single
This part of the plan remains exactly the same as before. But since ideally I’m turning around stories faster, that means I can put out short story collections faster as well. I’m not sure when I should decide to keep the short story single up while it’s also bundled in a collection, but that’s a publishing decision that has little to do with navigating the woke SF markets, so I’ll mull it over for now.
Stage Three: Bundle in Collections and Submit to the Reprint Markets
Again, this part of the plan is largely unchanged, with the caveat that I won’t be submitting my stories to any market that’s gone totally woke. Because of this, there may be times when my previously published stories aren’t on submission at all, but since that’s already the case, I’m not too worried about it. Besides, submitting to the reprint markets isn’t a high priority.
Conclusions
Thank goodness we live in a time when independent publishing is a viable option! If not, there’s a very good chance that none of my stories would have an avenue for getting out into the world, simply because I’m a straight white male who refuses to bend the knee to the woke establishment’s lies. In spite of all the insanity—and in spite of the fact that most of the major SF&F short story markets have gone completely woke—this is still the best time in history to be a writer and a reader.
Hello, Joe. I was on Amazon looking for some Sci-fi to purchase and Amazon recommended some of your books. While on your page, looking over your selections, I noticed a word from one of your articles.
I decided to read the three articles. I have no problems with your articles. I feel that they interesting and give me a lot to think about. I am one of those who love the self-publishing, or independent authors. And I spend around $500-$700/year on science fiction.
I love all of it. Contemporary, the classics, the golden age and the stories written in the 1800’s. I love science fiction. The first book written by you, that I received, is called Brothers in Exile, as a birthday gift from my brother.
Now, back to the word that I am referring to, is woke, and the definition that you applied to it. I am sorry to tell you this, but I was very hurt and confused how a word with so much positive meaning could be talked about so negatively.
I just feel l need to explain the correct meaning of the word. When the term was first used by black people during the Civil Rights movement, we used the term to signify that we “are no longer sleep walking.” We are no longer willing to tolerate Jim Crow, and lynchings and being unable to get a decent job that are we qualified to do, just because of ancestry. We will no longer tolerate the prejudice and the violence against us. We are human beings and demand to be treated as such. We are woke.
Now, that is the only definition l know of for being woke. If the term is being used in any other way, it is being misused! My ancestors definitely never wanted to take away the rights and liberties of another human being. The fact is, they had woken up, and discovered that Americans have certain rights and liberties as promised by our Founding Fathers and as American citizens, we are also entitled to these rights. This is the real meaning of being woke!
Another thing that I want to mention is your reference to “bending your knee.” Now, l don’t care if you choose to bend your knee or don’t bend your knee. What I would like to understand from you, is why do you choose to give the activity such a negative connotation? I am sure that you are aware that people are doing it to protest police brutality. Isn’t everyone against brutality? Being against police brutality does not make you against the police.
Now, I know there are many Americans who drive drunk and are ticketed or have their driving licenses removed. And they are only interested in protesting as a way of getting their revenge. But most people who protest the unnecessary use of violence are regular, normal people who live in unnatural fear and wish it would stop. So whether you choose to bend your knee or not is your decision, but please don’t use a symbol that is only trying to modernize our police as though it is something bad.
And of course I noticed that you had something negative to say about the BLM protesters. People, like me, who truly support the BLM movement do not support ANYBODY who is pretending to be a part of the movement. Those of us who truly care about how we are treated by the police, would definitely, never be rioting and looting and committing acts of violence to protest against violence.
I, and everyone that I know, were highly offended by the nonsense that we saw going on, under the guise of the BLM. Nobody that we know want to kill the police, or remove them from their jobs-unless they are incompetent and make the police look bad. As someone who has several friends and family members who are police officers, they say that this is something that is hard to do.(Being fired)
I sometimes felt, when I was watching tv, that some people were purposely using the popularity of the BLM movement to get their own issues and revenges addressed, and couldn’t care less about the lives of black people. We just want to be able to live without fear of the police and see them as the person who is interested in helping us. And that’s all that BLM means.
Thanks for the comment, Zain. I can understand how, if all you look at is the political messaging, you can come away with that impression. The messaging (read: propaganda) is designed to make you associate positive things with “wokeness,” “Black Lives Matter,” and “bend the knee.” But as with all propaganda, if you dig a little deeper into what these movements are actually promoting—in other words, pay attention to what these people actually do, not just to what they say—then I think you’ll start to see why so many of us have grown so cynical.
If you want a more concrete example, check out my June 2020 blog post Do Black Lives Actually Matter? I actually wrote that one before it came out that the BLM leaders were buying up multi-million dollar mansions in rich white neighborhoods with all of that donated money (so much for “white supremacy” being such a threat), and several local BLM chapters broke off from the national organization because of the corruption and graft. That’s why many of us now believe that BLM stands for “buy large mansions.”
You wanna know something funny about this whole thing? Because China Mike posted a snippet of your original article for his CHUDS to whine about, I went from there to your blog and read the whole thing. In the course of the article you mentioned the two Hazardous Imaginings books. I was curious, so I clicked the Amazon link for them. They looked interesting so I picked them up. So, File 770 own goal, I guess.
Thanks Quatermain! That’s exactly how Larry Correia built up his enormous following, so I’m not surprised in the least. I hope you enjoy the anthology!