Michael Moorcock's New Worlds Magazine

[Marzioli]

I've been keeping up with this market's emails and Facebook page, so I'm pretty caught up in that regard. However, since they've gone ahead with a first issue (due by the end of December) they've obviously contacted and purchased short stories from somebody! So that must mean they've read a substantial pile of slush and rejected a lot of stories already. Anyone know of anyone that has gotten one of those?

I have a 54-day out which, I realize, isn't that bad. But I'm always a pessimist and wonder if they 1) simply forgot to send a rejection, or 2) never got it.

 

[CaoPaux]

Site will be:http://www.newworlds.co.uk/

Info currently at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Moorcocks-New-Worlds-Magazine/147915805273883

 

[Marzioli]

After 65 days of no response, I was worried my sub had gotten lost or misdirected. I wrote the editor (Roger Gray) about their query guidelines, and then mentioned my September submission. He says he's too busy working on the first issue to read new submissions right now, so all the slush is on hold. He says writers are free their stories elsewhere and that they'll get to all of them in time.

So I guess if you don't want to wait, you could hit up multiple submission markets. Seems like a good guy. I hope, for everyone's sake (authors, readers and the staff), it succeeds!

 

[SpencerEllsworth]

I had a story in issue #2. It was not a market I'd recommend. They did not send a contract, just a set of terms, and when I asked for a contract, they said, in essence, "take what we've offered or we'll pull the story." At the time they had already published the story, without any contract.

My story was up for a good three months and I was never paid. This was the explanation:

"Here's how it breaks down. Payment is deferred until we have hit all our sales angles, i.e. e-mail our subscriber list. We don't start putting the next issue together until we have paid our contributors. If we fail to raise enough we pay them out of reserve and that's that.

As we have been making changes to how we contact our subscribers this has not yet been done for issue 2 as yet, in fact [web editor] and I are working on this tonight as soon as we have exploited our sales potential you will be informed of your payment."

That email came in mid-July.

I was left with the choice to take my story and run, or hold on for a few months and hope for pay. I chose the second option, but I'm not saying that was the right one. Avoid any market that won't give you a contract and pay up-front.

These days, the site itself appears to be kaput. I'm waiting on word of what happened, and whether or not I can take the story elsewhere or if they'll actually restore the site and pay.

 

[MumblingSage]

I had a story in issue #2. It was not a market I'd recommend. They did not send a contract, just a set of terms, and when I asked for a contract, they said, in essence, "take what we've offered or we'll pull the story." At the time they had already published the story, without any contract.

My story was up for a good three months and I was never paid. This was the explanation:

"Here's how it breaks down. Payment is deferred until we have hit all our sales angles, i.e. e-mail our subscriber list. We don't start putting the next issue together until we have paid our contributors. If we fail to raise enough we pay them out of reserve and that's that.

As we have been making changes to how we contact our subscribers this has not yet been done for issue 2 as yet, in fact [web editor] and I are working on this tonight as soon as we have exploited our sales potential you will be informed of your payment."

That email came in mid-July.

I was left with the choice to take my story and run, or hold on for a few months and hope for pay. I chose the second option, but I'm not saying that was the right one. Avoid any market that won't give you a contract and pay up-front.

These days, the site itself appears to be kaput. I'm waiting on word of what happened, and whether or not I can take the story elsewhere or if they'll actually restore the site and pay.

Wow..I'm sorry that happened to you!

Of the market itself from the beginning I had the sense it wasn't being run particularily well (from a FaceBook page, at that)--but this is still an unpleasant surprise.

 

[Filigree]

Thanks for the heads-up. Too bad. I was hoping this one would be a viable market, for the name cachet.

 

[Manuel Royal]

That's a shame. I wonder how much Michael Moorcock actually had to do with the magazine.

 

[CaoPaux]

These days, the site itself appears to be kaput. I'm waiting on word of what happened, and whether or not I can take the story elsewhere or if they'll actually restore the site and pay.

Site's back, but no activity there or on FB since May.

ETA: Per Wiki, Moorcock officially announced the magazine's closure in Oct '14, "due to lack of subscriber income".