Now Full-Time Writer-Need Advice SS Markets

[BamaKathy]

I quit my job to devote myself full-time to writing. My first two short stories submitted were both contracted for publication. I have mostly submitted to anthologies like Chicken Soup, etc, but need advice on where to find the markets for short stories. I found these by surfing the web but figured there has to be a better way. I would appreciate your advice.

[write4details]

Whoa, I hope you're going to be OK. As Robert Hunter wrote, "Don't quit your day job until your night job starts to pay."

I seriously doubt there is a single writer in the US making a living writing short fiction. It was possible back in the day, when Vonnegutt was writing for Redbook, etc....but you've probably noticed mainstream mags don't really carry fiction any more. (Takes too much time to read, slowing down the current design scheme of MTV meets shopping channel)

There are places you can unload fiction, but not for any real money. Hopefully you have article markets, etc. lined up to boil the pot.

The great days of American short fiction are over. There is much less run in "real" magazines, and the current trends in short stories are towards a very dry and exclusionary style that the general public does not find interesting. That might be a chicken and egg causality, or maybe a co-incidence.

[CACTUSWENDY]

...Well, congrats on your first two sales...and much luck on many others. :banana: :banana:

[Jamesaritchie]

Whoa, I hope you're going to be OK. As Robert Hunter wrote, "Don't quit your day job until your night job starts to pay."

I seriously doubt there is a single writer in the US making a living writing short fiction. It was possible back in the day, when Vonnegutt was writing for Redbook, etc....but you've probably noticed mainstream mags don't really carry fiction any more. (Takes too much time to read, slowing down the current design scheme of MTV meets shopping channel)

There are places you can unload fiction, but not for any real money. Hopefully you have article markets, etc. lined up to boil the pot.

The great days of American short fiction are over. There is much less run in "real" magazines, and the current trends in short stories are towards a very dry and exclusionary style that the general public does not find interesting. That might be a chicken and egg causality, or maybe a co-incidence.

There are three or four writers who earn a living writing short stories. The general public diasagrees with you about the style and quality of the short fiction out there right now. Short stories are doing better than they have in a great many years.

You may find today's short stories dry and exclusionary, but most think some of the greatest short story writers who ever lived are doing their thing right now. I don't think better short fiction has ever been published that what is out there right now.

[Jamesaritchie]

I quit my job to devote myself full-time to writing. My first two short stories submitted were both contracted for publication. I have mostly submitted to anthologies like Chicken Soup, etc, but need advice on where to find the markets for short stories. I found these by surfing the web but figured there has to be a better way. I would appreciate your advice.

You need Writer's Market for short stories info. The online version is best, and at about three bucks per month, it's pretty cheap.

The genre you write in depends on what other online help there is.

[write4details]

Everybody has their own opinions on fiction, or course.
But the idea that there are people out there making a living writing short stories strains the credulity. Can you name even one?
Who in the world do they write for?


By the way, I didn't see any sales mentioned. I saw "contracted for publication".

[write4details]

BTW, though we each have our own opinions, when you go beyond that to say what "most" think and that the "general public" likes current short fiction better you stray from that, and start looking a little confused.

The general public hardly reads short fiction anymore, actually. There was a time when short stories in Saturday Evening Post, for instance, were hotly followed, there were several stories that ended up turning into series due to public demand. O'Henry wrote for NEWSPAPERS...can you think of any dailies that feature fiction today? Women's magazines features several stories per issue and many who wrote for them became major writers. The great novelists of the 40s 50s and even 60s wrote for magazines and even made their bones there before moving up to glory.

This is emphatically not the case today as any trip to a magazine store or libraty can quickly attest.

I'd say a major reason for that is the same thing that took poetry from being a national mania in which poets like Swinburne and Frost and Longfellow were read, bought and memorized...and made livings...into something that is strictly the domain of college-educated elite. Namely, the academicizing of the field. Suddenly there were writing schools disgorging all these workshop writers into the field...they published in "little magazines" and reviews, run by academicians and using styles taught and promoted in the schools. Most of the greats never went to writing school...they wrote for the public.

So now, instead of DeMauppasant and Collier and O'Henry and John O'Hara and Vonnegutt and Oates...we have the Carver wannabees. Flat stories about tiny little events that mean nothing but are doubtless fraught with nuance and meaning to those trained to see it.

No, "most' of the "general" public don't think stories are greater now than ever, most don't even read them. Where would they? In the Paris Review? Most of the guys I know who made any money at all selling fiction don't even try to place shorts any more.

This concept of what the "public" opinion on shorts is can be pretty easily checked out. Look at magazines, look at seller lists, ask people next time you're near a street or bus. It's easy to sell oneself on things like this...check it out a little.

[pixiejuice]

Flat stories about tiny little events that mean nothing but are doubtless fraught with nuance and meaning to those trained to see it.

Wow, I take it you don't like contemporary literary writing. It's not for everybody, but I'd like to argue that you don't need to be trained to read a literary story. It definitely does take a heightened level of observation. "Flat" is an opinion, and those little events mean everything if you take the time to think about them.

But then, that may be more involvement than some people are willing to spend - which is fine; there's a genre of writing for everyone.

I'm not going to claim I know anything about what the "general public" likes to read, or whatever. But I'm certain, at least to start, one cannot make a decent living writing short fiction. Most short fiction writers are also novelists, teachers, or have some other kind of supplemental income to support them.

Kathy, contrats on your first two sales! And good luck with your new writing career.

I use the 2005 Novel & Short Story Writer's Market, which I then cross-reference with the lit journal's own website because the market books very often wrong. It is helpful though because it has detailed info like how many submissions they get vs. how many they accept, or what awards they've won, and sometimes a quote from the editor about what they look for in a story.

I don't write genre fiction though, so I can't vouch for how well it works for genre writers.

I also stumbled on this page the other day with some good links on it:

http://www.mamohanraj.com/Writing/litmarket.html

[luke_e_richards]

Where I would agree that there is one institutionalised, stylistically driven school of artistic thought, I would remind everyone that this has always been the case. There is another school of artistic thought. These are the people who write or paint for the love of it, or because they have something deep they wish to express. They are making art, for the simple reason that they are artistically rather than stylistically driven. I agree that there is a contrived depthlessness in the present age. For more ammunition in arguements about it, I highly recommend reading Intimations of Postmodernity by Zigmunt Bauman, and Simulations and Simulacra by Jean Baudrillard. These Sociological texts are a little dated, but they encompass what you're talking about. Likewise, The Condition of Postmodernity by David Harvey is a good read, and includes plenty of theory about art. I would argue that the artists who are artistically driven have, in the past, not been appreciated in their time. VanGogh is probably the most readily remembered perfect example of this. It is true to no small extent that a great deal of "popular" art is created in the MacDonalds soup kitchen these days. It is also true that if you don't think there are any great artists out there today, there is no point in wingeing about it. Do something about it. Become the great artist who will change the world.

As someone who truly loves writing, I have read very few stories which I don't think had some sort of merit. There are writers out there who I deeply respect, and rightly so. There is not a single writer out there making a living who I can honestly say I don't respect. If I were to say so, I'd know I was only jealous. If I don't like a writer, I strive to one day surpass him, because I will never give up on the art I love.

Congratulations on your story sales! Good for you! I'd be careful about putting all your eggs into one basket though. Read Keep the Aspidistra Flying by George Orwell if you ever feel the need to scare yourself straight.

Good luck!

[Sailor Kenshin]

Congrats on the sales, Bama!

[Solatium]

I don't know if you've used StoryPilot (http://storypilot.com/) yet; I think it's one of the niftiest free market listings out there. (It claims to focus on SF and fantasy, but includes a lot of other genre and literary markets as well.) You can search by any number of criteria, including pay rate.

Good luck!

[Greer]

Everybody has their own opinions on fiction, or course.
But the idea that there are people out there making a living writing short stories strains the credulity. Can you name even one?
Who in the world do they write for?

William Trevor, Alice Munro, George Saunders, Rick Bass for starters (this is only literary fiction as well; I can't speak to genre markets)...granted Munro and Trevor aren't Americans, but they certainly publish plenty of stories in American markets. They write for the New Yorker, Harper's, Atlantic, and then they publish books. It certainly is not easy, and it certainly is rare, but a few writers do make a living writing short stories.

[write4details]

and then they publish books

That certainly helps. But you are pretty positive these people are not also professors, teachers, etc?

If so, great, there is hope for us all. Rod McKuen, by the way, actually made a living with poetry for awhile.

[write4details]

Then again, I was wondering how somebody could be so certain these people live only by support of their short stories. Munro is married, so the question of boiling the pot becomes a moot one. A quick curiousity google led to finding jobs for most of these people, actually.

Saunders says, "I was working for an engineering firm when I sold those first pieces".

Most of these people seem to be past retirement age, and are at the "fat end" of their ability to sell. So even if they are living completely by their short stories at the moment, it's hardly a glowing recommendation for the finanacial benefits of a career in short fiction writing.

On the other hand, in the fifties and sixties a LOT of young writers were paying rent in New York City no less, but writing for pulps and slicks.

[Greer]

The general public hardly reads short fiction anymore, actually. There was a time when short stories in Saturday Evening Post, for instance, were hotly followed, there were several stories that ended up turning into series due to public demand. O'Henry wrote for NEWSPAPERS...can you think of any dailies that feature fiction today? Women's magazines features several stories per issue and many who wrote for them became major writers. The great novelists of the 40s 50s and even 60s wrote for magazines and even made their bones there before moving up to glory.

This is emphatically not the case today as any trip to a magazine store or libraty can quickly attest.

I'd say a major reason for that is the same thing that took poetry from being a national mania in which poets like Swinburne and Frost and Longfellow were read, bought and memorized...and made livings...into something that is strictly the domain of college-educated elite. Namely, the academicizing of the field. Suddenly there were writing schools disgorging all these workshop writers into the field...they published in "little magazines" and reviews, run by academicians and using styles taught and promoted in the schools. Most of the greats never went to writing school...they wrote for the public.

So now, instead of DeMauppasant and Collier and O'Henry and John O'Hara and Vonnegutt and Oates...we have the Carver wannabees. Flat stories about tiny little events that mean nothing but are doubtless fraught with nuance and meaning to those trained to see it.

No, "most' of the "general" public don't think stories are greater now than ever, most don't even read them. Where would they? In the Paris Review? Most of the guys I know who made any money at all selling fiction don't even try to place shorts any more.

This concept of what the "public" opinion on shorts is can be pretty easily checked out. Look at magazines, look at seller lists, ask people next time you're near a street or bus. It's easy to sell oneself on things like this...check it out a little.

Write4Details, you make some good points; I don't think anybody is arguing that short fiction is as popular as it was a hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago. But, it IS more popular than it's been in the last twenty years, despite many major magazines discontinuing publishing it. For example, the Best American Short Story anthology put out by Houghton Mifflin is always a bestseller, and the last few years has seen best-selling short story collections increasingly recognized as winners or finalists for the Pulitzer Prize, something which used to be unheard of.

Your argument about the academizing of short fiction is well-worn and problematic. Kafka, Orwell, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and the rest of the "greats" published in just as many small literary journals edited by academics or theorists as writers do now (if not more so, the number of journals devoted to artistic/aesthetic "movements" far outstrips the current number.) Would you call Joyce a great? What about Faulkner? They wrote things far more difficult to comprehend -- and theoretically based -- than anything being written today. And, incidentally, most "greats" did study writing in school -- just not in MFA programs (I'm no great fan of MFA programs, by the way). I suppose you could point to O. Henry as an anomaly, but whether or not he was a "great" can also be debated.

The reference to devotees of Carver dominating the literary scene is, frankly, not valid. Minimalism went out at least fifteen years ago; instead, I'd argue that multiculturalism is what is dominating right now. Its merits can be debated, but it is certainly not fiction that one "needs to be trained" to understand.

Fiction, like everything else, goes in cycles. A hundred years ago the short story was a brand-new, exciting way to tell a story. It's not anymore. Why do you think that memoirs have become so popular the last fifteen years? Is it because of the academizing of the novel? Or maybe because it has become a viable way to tell a story? A hundred years after Montaigne people were saying the essay was dead.

I commiserate with you as much as anybody about the decline of popular magazines publishing short fiction. The fact that millions no longer read stories in the Post or other weekly rags can't be argued against. I guess we just disagree on the reasons.

[Greer]

Then again, I was wondering how somebody could be so certain these people live only by support of their short stories. Munro is married, so the question of boiling the pot becomes a moot one. A quick curiousity google led to finding jobs for most of these people, actually.

Saunders says, "I was working for an engineering firm when I sold those first pieces".

Most of these people seem to be past retirement age, and are at the "fat end" of their ability to sell. So even if they are living completely by their short stories at the moment, it's hardly a glowing recommendation for the finanacial benefits of a career in short fiction writing.

On the other hand, in the fifties and sixties a LOT of young writers were paying rent in New York City no less, but writing for pulps and slicks.

Alice Munro gets immense book contracts and her books are bestsellers...Nell Freudenberger (under 30) was offered a half million for a collection based on the strength of one published story...there are others, not many, but a few. Yes, there is hope. And nobody is saying it is wise to throw away everything and bank on a career of short fiction. But at some point it might become viable for some people.

The question was whether anyone was living off short story writing, not their age or what they were doing beforehand...yes, a lot of writers do teach, but not always because they have to. You think Michael Cunningham has to teach? David Foster Wallace? JM Coetzee? Tobias Wolff? Teaching writing doesn't necessarily speak to financial need. Many of them report doing it because they love talking about writing.

You're right, back in the fifties and sixties a lot of writers were paying rent by writing for pulps and slicks, and that is certainly not the case anymore. Still, most of those folks were BARELY scraping by. A lot of them ended up writing for the movies, actually.

[write4details]

Most of the talent is going into movie writing now, actually.

So you're sure those people make a living just writing short fiction, huh? How did you find that out?

Age does matter. If somebody is retired and living on retirement or social security, then yeah, you can write short fiction full time and not starve. But that's not what we are talking about. And I didn't say "did before" take a look...he said he was working at that job when he started writing. He seems old enough for social security, too.
If somebody is a housewife and writes great...but that doesn't mean they are living off of writing.

If you want to think it's a good idea to jump off the pier and hope to stay alive by writing fiction, fine. Have fun. But I would certainly not counsel anybody to do it.

The idea of Faulkner being some inscrutable, theoretical writer is hilarious.

And NO, most of the greats did NOT study writing in school. Flat out. Whever you got that idea, you got the wrong idea.

[pixiejuice]

Greer said: Nell Freudenberger (under 30) was offered a half million for a collection based on the strength of one published story...

Wow, did she really? Was it "The Tutor"? That was a really great story.

Damn, half a million! Now that gives me something to shoot for ;)

[Greer]

Most of the talent is going into movie writing now, actually.

So you're sure those people make a living just writing short fiction, huh? How did you find that out?

Age does matter. If somebody is retired and living on retirement or social security, then yeah, you can write short fiction full time and not starve. But that's not what we are talking about. And I didn't say "did before" take a look...he said he was working at that job when he started writing. He seems old enough for social security, too.
If somebody is a housewife and writes great...but that doesn't mean they are living off of writing.

If you want to think it's a good idea to jump off the pier and hope to stay alive by writing fiction, fine. Have fun. But I would certainly not counsel anybody to do it.

The idea of Faulkner being some inscrutable, theoretical writer is hilarious.

And NO, most of the greats did NOT study writing in school. Flat out. Whever you got that idea, you got the wrong idea.

Wow. Obviously this "conversation" isn't going anywhere. But a few final points:

a) I know about writers making a living off writing short fiction because I have spoken with some of them, and in fact, know one quite well. And they are not all living on Social Security or a spouse's paycheck.

b) Once again, nobody is disagreeing with you that it is foolish to "jump off the pier and stay alive by writing fiction."

c) you obviously don't know much about Faulkner's ouevre.

d) we must disagree who the "greats" are. A lot of the ones I'm thinking of/have mentioned did write while they were in school, studying literature, poetry, etc. And if you think that the "talent" churning out pablum in Hollywood is on a par with Fitzgerald and Faulkner, who were forced to screenwriting to pay the bills, then we obviously disagree on the notion of "talent." So be it.

[write4details]

A lot of the ones I'm thinking of/have mentioned did write while they were in school, studying literature, poetry, etc

And a lot studied completely other subjects. But you did a twist there..you have turned being in writing programs around to writing while in school, a very different proposition. Most people go to school, most people who go to school read literature. Very few major writers prior to the past couple of decades were writing majors.

Your response to my line about young talent heading to Hollywood instead of New York is similarly misconstrued. But that's what's happening. Just like a few years ago all the young Harvard writing talent was flocking into writing TV comedies. I very seriously doubt there are many young writers today who want to be Fitzgerald or Faulkner. I still consider your ideas about what Faulkner was doing to be a scream. The idea that you consider Fitzgerald to be some major writing talent is very quaint. Have you read any of that stuff recently? There are movie writers and scifi writers who write better and more naturally than that these days.

All far afield from the question, of course.

[Birol]

The idea that you consider Fitzgerald to be some major writing talent is very quaint. Have you read any of that stuff recently? There are movie writers and scifi writers who write better and more naturally than that these days.




Let's try not to disparage any group of writers in our discussions, okay?

[Greer]

And a lot studied completely other subjects. But you did a twist there..you have turned being in writing programs around to writing while in school, a very different proposition. Most people go to school, most people who go to school read literature. Very few major writers prior to the past couple of decades were writing majors.

Your response to my line about young talent heading to Hollywood instead of New York is similarly misconstrued. But that's what's happening. Just like a few years ago all the young Harvard writing talent was flocking into writing TV comedies. I very seriously doubt there are many young writers today who want to be Fitzgerald or Faulkner. I still consider your ideas about what Faulkner was doing to be a scream. The idea that you consider Fitzgerald to be some major writing talent is very quaint. Have you read any of that stuff recently? There are movie writers and scifi writers who write better and more naturally than that these days.

All far afield from the question, of course.

You're right -- all far afield...

But I said they studied writing and wrote while in school, not entered writing programs. Obviously, with the exception of Iowa (where some of your "greats" like Vonnegut actually taught) there weren't a lot of writing programs until the last two decades. And the decline of short fiction in the popular mind occured far before the last two decades. So it must be something else.

Your points are well-taken, though. I'm curious why you think an admiration for Fitzgerald is "quaint." Don't you think that the phrase "writing naturally" is problematic, considering how arbitrary it is? This is getting into the field of aesthetics, even farther away from the original discussion, but is still interesting. Also, isn't it wise to consider the time when he was writing? I have read him lately, and I find his sentences exquisite, actually. Perhaps that's my own sensibility.

[write4details]

Perhaps that's my own sensibility.

Who else's sensiblity would it be? That's the trouble with The Greats. Lack of agreement on who they are.

[ClaudiaP]

Pam Houston would be another example of someone who did very well writing short stories. Eventually she expanded into short stories as well and now has published a novel. But she bought her big ranch in Colorado off the proceeds of her short-story collection, Cowboys Are My Weakness. She now teaches part time. I asked her why she did this, since my personal goal would be to give up my day job and focus on writing (and family and skiing). She said she really liked teaching. And that if she lived more frugally, she could get by on her income as a writer, but she likes having her expensive ranch.

Alice Munro may have a husband but she sells nearly every story she writes to the NYer, for what, about $5K a pop, and then sticks them in a collection and they become best sellers.

But being a literary best seller doesn't ALWAYS mean you earn enough to live on. There are lots of successful writers who do still need to teach.

And in the science fiction world, Ed Bryant makes enough off his short story writing to live in Denver...

[Mike Coombes]

As someone who enjoyed moderate success selling short fiction last year (11 stories in 12 months) and had the pleasure of working as an editor on a short fiction magazine (NFG) I would have to say it's virtually impossible to earn a living purely selling short fiction.

Seriously, guys... look at even just the pro rate mags. how many 2.5-5k stories equal a reaonable annual salary? And it's a competetive market - at NFG we had something like 10,000 subs chasing around 50 slots. It's the same all over.

those who make a living writing - and I'm including 75% of novellists also - do so by supplementing their earnings writing articles, reviews, advertising copy, whatever.

And the short fiction market itself is largely incestuous - the majority of fic mag subscriptions are bought by wannabe writers.