Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine

Jamesaritchie · Feb 15, 2011

For those of you who write mystery shorts, as of yesterday, Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine has gone paperless with submissions. You can find the new writer's guidelines here: http://www.themysteryplace.com/eqmm/guidelines/

No word yet on whether Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine will follow suit.

stormie · Feb 15, 2011

Finally! Thanks for the info.

AlwaysJuly · Feb 15, 2011

Booya! Thanks for the info.

Lost World · Feb 15, 2011

I have subbed a few times to AHMM, which is sure to follow suit, and this does not make me happy. I'll wager that written submissions cut down on the amount of material submitted to a publication, as they have to be prepared carefully and paid for. Now the writers who were too lazy to go to the post office will be just a click away, the editors will have more slush to wade through, and the response times will grow longer. Bound to happen eventually, but I'm not thrilled about it.

Jamesaritchie · Feb 15, 2011

Lost World said:
I have subbed a few times to AHMM, which is sure to follow suit, and this does not make me happy. I'll wager that written submissions cut down on the amount of material submitted to a publication, as they have to be prepared carefully and paid for. Now the writers who were too lazy to go to the post office will be just a click away, the editors will have more slush to wade through, and the response times will grow longer. Bound to happen eventually, but I'm not thrilled about it.

I tend to agree. I've talked to several editors who have gone electronic submissions, and while some say not much changed, others say that the number of submissions almost tripled once word got around.

At best, it means more work for the editor, and slower response times. At worst, it means getting way behind on reading submissions, and rejecting each story quickly, and without giving each the same chance a paper submission received.

We'll see how it goes.

Gray Rose · Feb 15, 2011

Jamesaritchie said:
At best, it means more work for the editor, and slower response times. At worst, it means getting way behind on reading submissions, and rejecting each story quickly, and without giving each the same chance a paper submission received.

At best, e-subs give those of us who are not middle class (or living in the US) a better chance at the submission game.

eqb · Feb 15, 2011

Gray Rose said:
At best, e-subs give those of us who are not middle class (or living in the US) a better chance at the submission game.

QFT.

Polenth · Feb 15, 2011

Lost World said:
I have subbed a few times to AHMM, which is sure to follow suit, and this does not make me happy. I'll wager that written submissions cut down on the amount of material submitted to a publication, as they have to be prepared carefully and paid for. Now the writers who were too lazy to go to the post office will be just a click away, the editors will have more slush to wade through, and the response times will grow longer. Bound to happen eventually, but I'm not thrilled about it.

The electronic system means you can reject at the click of a button and people can check they're in the queue without sending queries. My replies from Asimov's have been much faster via the electronic system (counting time they had the story only, not mailing times). So even if they do get more submissions, they can also process them faster.

EQMM is using the same submission system as Asimov's. I'm sure the editors of the two magazines talked about it before making a decision. They wouldn't have gone ahead with it if the Asimov's system was a failure and meant more work.

ETA: It occurred to me some may not realise, but both magazines are run by the same company and share a building. It's not coincidence that they're using the same submissions system.

Jamesaritchie · Feb 15, 2011

Gray Rose said:
At best, e-subs give those of us who are not middle class (or living in the US) a better chance at the submission game.

Not living in the U.S. I agree with, but the cost of snail mail within the U.S. is minimal. Dirt cheap, in fact. My average story, with cost of paper, ink, envelopes, and stamps all counted, costs about three bucks to get into submission.

Even with resubmitting rejected stories, and flooding the market as much as I can, my total shot story snail mail costs for an entire year seldom go above four hundred dollars, or about eight bucks per week. You don't have to be middle class to afford eight bucks per week. If you can afford a computer and an Internet connection, you can find eight bucks per week. Few writers are prolific enough to need even this small sum.

And the idea is to sell stories. One sale to anything like a decent market will cover most or all of a year's postage, paper, ink, and envelopes, and I firmly believe new writers stand a better chance of selling to good markets with snail mail submissions.

In her post about going electronic, the editor, Janet Hutchings, said something every editor knows. When personal computers first began to be generally affordable, EQMM received many submissions from people who said they’d started writing stories because they found it so much easier now that they had a computer (really, this is true!). It hardly needs to be said that those submissions were almost always a waste of our time, and we were glad when the computer became so much a part of ordinary life that non-writers found other, better uses for their machines.

The "ease" of using computers and word processors to write turned already big slush piles into much, much larger slush piles. E-submissions are doing the same thing to an even higher degree. Combine this with the real ease of rejecting stories with a click of the mouse, even if you've barely skimmed them as you sometimes have to do when slush piles get too big, and it isn't easier for new writers to break in at paying magazines, it's tougher.

Janet Hutchings is one of the best editors out there, and I think she'll do everything possible to stop this from happening, but sometimes even the best editors get overwhelmed, fall too far behind, and must take drastic measures. You simply can't allow slush to get too large, so you either start rejecting as fast as possible, or you shut down all submissions until you catch up. None of this is good for unpublished writers.

eqb · Feb 15, 2011

Polenth said:
EQMM is using the same submission system as Asimov's.

The system was designed by Clarkesworld, and it's been adopted by a number of magazines.

Polenth · Feb 15, 2011

eqb said:
The system was designed by Clarkesworld, and it's been adopted by a number of magazines.

I don't have the link, but when Asimov's added it, people asked about the other Dell Magazines and it was said they might change depending how it went for Asimov's.

I'm not saying other totally unrelated magazines aren't using it. But in this case, it isn't coincidence and they wouldn't have added it if Asimov's was having a bad experience.

eqb · Feb 15, 2011

Oh, absolutely. I was just adding info about the system itself.

Jamesaritchie · Feb 15, 2011

Polenth said:
The electronic system means you can reject at the click of a button and people can check they're in the queue without sending queries. My replies from Asimov's have been much faster via the electronic system (counting time they had the story only, not mailing times). So even if they do get more submissions, they can also process them faster.

EQMM is using the same submission system as Asimov's. I'm sure the editors of the two magazines talked about it before making a decision. They wouldn't have gone ahead with it if the Asimov's system was a failure and meant more work.

ETA: It occurred to me some may not realise, but both magazines are run by the same company and share a building. It's not coincidence that they're using the same submissions system.

I hope you're right, but it's the faster processing that's the problem for new writers. E-submissions are fast and efficient for submission and processing, but not for finding new, unpublished writers.

If e-submissions do not mean more work, it means the editor is doing something seriously bad for new writers.

Many haven't dealt with paper slush piles, and my experience is that they take longer not because they're paper, but because you spend more time with each story. Less slush and actual paper in your hands mean you read more of the story, give it a better chance, that you do with large e-slush.

It really has nothing to do with the system being a failure. It's most often a big success for editors and known writers, but not for brand new writers trying to break in.

It does depend on the individual magazine, of course. With some, the slush really doesn't grow much, or the nature of your magazine means relatively small slush piles regardless of how stories are submitted, and it depends on whether the editor has a first reader to weed out the obviously bad material.

Gray Rose · Feb 15, 2011

Jamesaritchie said:
Not living in the U.S. I agree with, but the cost of snail mail within the U.S. is minimal. Dirt cheap, in fact. My average story, with cost of paper, ink, envelopes, and stamps all counted, costs about three bucks to get into submission.

Even with resubmitting rejected stories, and flooding the market as much as I can, my total shot story snail mail costs for an entire year seldom go above four hundred dollars, or about eight bucks per week. You don't have to be middle class to afford eight bucks per week. If you can afford a computer and an Internet connection, you can find eight bucks per week. Few writers are prolific enough to need even this small sum.

Let me venture a guess that you are not poor, have never been poor, have never been disabled, and/or have never been a caregiver to a disabled person.

This is the first and last time I will be saying anything on this subject on AW, but let me unpack this just a little for you, because usually I find your posts informative.

Eight dollars a week are eight packs of ramen noodles. About five packages of pasta. They might even stretch to eight packages of pasta if you know where to go. Four packages of pasta and four cans of tomato sauce, again if you know where to go. Three pairs of underwear at a discount store. Shall I go on? If you've never made these calculations, you've never been poor. Congratulations on your privilege!

When you are poor, you do not always own a printer. A computer, yes, but not a printer. Because you cannot afford paper and ink. Or maybe you owned a printer, but it broke down.

When you are poor,and caring for a disabled person, you often cannot go to the post office. You cannot leave your disabled person. Maybe you do not own a car. Or you own a car, but you cannot afford gas. Maybe you can afford gas, but it's a clunker, and in wintertime you are afraid to drive. Maybe you are disabled yourself. It is a hardship to get out of the house.

Let me repeat that - when you are disabled, it is often a hardship to get out of the house.

When you are poor, your chances of becoming disabled are greater, because you are less likely to have medical insurance.

Which is why, when you are poor, or disabled, or caring for a disabled person, e-subs are a godsend.

Editors who care about diversity increasingly recognize this. It is a good thing, IMHO.

Adam Israel · Feb 15, 2011

Jamesaritchie said:
I hope you're right, but it's the faster processing that's the problem for new writers. E-submissions are fast and efficient for submission and processing, but not for finding new, unpublished writers.

This is not my experience, both as a slush reader and new-ish writer. Established, recognized writers may skip the slush and go straight to the editor. Newer writers need to pass the slush process before going to the editor. Nothing about that part of the process has changed, between paper and electronic submissions.

Submitting electronically makes it easier to tackle the slush pile. Distribution of manuscripts is no longer an issue, so there's no longer the limitation of slush readers being in the same physical location; more can be brought on to read and there are plenty of people willing to wrangle slush for the experience of it.

oldcharliebrown · Feb 16, 2011

I'll take that bet . . .

" I'll wager that written submissions cut down on the amount of material submitted to a publication." You'd wager wrong, actually. I've worked on several genre magazines (still do!) and when we took paper submissions the quality was just as bad. (Sometimes even worse, as we got submissions done in crayon or material sent from prison inmates.) So I call this one a myth. And in my experience the number of submissions do not go up, on the average, either. And as pointed out the response times at ASIMOV's have actually been faster, not slower.

I'd actually say that Janet is wrong in her editorial. Times have changed. Yes, you should see an immediate increase, but then it balances out down the road, especially as authors transition from snailmail to online. It's already been seen to work at many other magazines, already. And obviously if it was a problem at ASIMOV's, it wouldn't have been adopted elsewhere.

An online submission system actually makes it easier, not harder, for newer authors to get published. (As established authors generally skip the slush anyway) It depends on the editor, and the slush team, more than anything else, really, not the slush itself. It's how you use it, not anything else that matters.

Susan Lanigan · Feb 28, 2011

I subbed to them just now. Subbing went fine but when I clicked the link on the "track progress" email, got a 404...

Jamesaritchie · Feb 28, 2011

oldcharliebrown said:
" I'll wager that written submissions cut down on the amount of material submitted to a publication." You'd wager wrong, actually. I've worked on several genre magazines (still do!) and when we took paper submissions the quality was just as bad. (Sometimes even worse, as we got submissions done in crayon or material sent from prison inmates.) So I call this one a myth. And in my experience the number of submissions do not go up, on the average, either. And as pointed out the response times at ASIMOV's have actually been faster, not slower.

I'd actually say that Janet is wrong in her editorial. Times have changed. Yes, you should see an immediate increase, but then it balances out down the road, especially as authors transition from snail mail to online. It's already been seen to work at many other magazines, already. And obviously if it was a problem at ASIMOV's, it wouldn't have been adopted elsewhere.

An online submission system actually makes it easier, not harder, for newer authors to get published. (As established authors generally skip the slush anyway) It depends on the editor, and the slush team, more than anything else, really, not the slush itself. It's how you use it, not anything else that matters.

No, electronic does not make it easier for new writers to get published. That doesn't even make sense. Paper may be as bad, but it sure as heck isn't as massive. And the simple fact remains that electronic does make for more submissions. Right here on AW we have all sorts of writers who won't even submit to magazines that want snail mail.

No one said it''s a problem for editors, or for established writers. To them, it's a Godsend. For new writers, it simply is not as good.

Izz · Mar 1, 2011

James, oldcharliebrown knows what he's talking about. His editing experience is current and ongoing.

And Rose, i agree with you completely about electronic subs giving people outside of middle-class America an opportunity to chase their dreams. Diversity in genre fiction (and all fiction, but genre is my thang) is nothing but good.

stormie · Mar 1, 2011

When I first started subbing over eleven years ago, it was mostly by snail mail. I spent so much money on envelopes (mailer and business size), postage (for SASE too), ink, paper.... And many times, if the printer jammed or the print looked faint, I had to clean the print heads (using up more ink), and reprint the pages.

I swear in that first year alone I must have spent at least $50 on all of the above, since I was subbing short stories and essays.

And I prefer the electronic submissions over email too. This way you know they received it and can track the progress.

MeretSeger · Mar 2, 2011

Susan Lanigan said:
I subbed to them just now. Subbing went fine but when I clicked the link on the "track progress" email, got a 404...

Has that cleared up for you? I subbed about the same time and I still get that on the link. When I actually log on to their system, it recognizes the number and says received, though...

Hopefully, it's just a link glitch.

Shadow_Ferret · Mar 2, 2011

Gray Rose said:
At best, e-subs give those of us who are not middle class (or living in the US) a better chance at the submission game.

Not sure what this means. When I was a teenager, the ONLY way to sub was through the mail. I'd hardly call a teenager middle class.

Even today, postage is NOT that much.

Izz · Mar 2, 2011

Shadow_Ferret said:
Not sure what this means. When I was a teenager, the ONLY way to sub was through the mail. I'd hardly call a teenager middle class.

Even today, postage is NOT that much.

Read Rose's next post, SF. It explains her standpoint well.

Gray Rose · Mar 2, 2011

Shadow_Ferret said:
Not sure what this means. When I was a teenager, the ONLY way to sub was through the mail. I'd hardly call a teenager middle class.

Even today, postage is NOT that much.

How did you pay postage? I bet it was pocket money.

Because you know, I did not get any pocket money growing up. I did not get lunch money either. I did not get money for clothes. I did not get money for textbooks. You know why? Because I was an immigrant. My family was struggling and poor. Sending snail mail anywhere was out of the question.

How are you not a middle-class kid if your middle-class parents are paying your postage?

Polenth · Mar 2, 2011

Classes do have a range. My family has always been working class, but we went from poor working class to comfortable with some luxuries working class. That said, my childhood pocket money would have paid for less than one submission to the US a month (with no spare money for anything else). You can't really say that would be an improvement over being able to submit electronically (which wasn't possible when I was younger, but if I'd grown up today, I could use the library or school systems to send submissions).

I'm both better and worse off now. My family has more money, so I get food and taken places. But I don't get pocket money as an adult and my writing earnings are well below the poverty line. I'd use up all the money I earnt writing if I posted submissions.

Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine

storm central

slugging through

He'll NEVER fit in!

Beware of the Thorns!

I write novels

Mushroom

I write novels

Mushroom

I write novels

Beware of the Thorns!

Formerly known as StoneTable

Doing the Space Operatic

storm central

The Alydar of Writers

Court Jester

Doing the Space Operatic

Beware of the Thorns!

Mushroom