The Importance of Saying No

[leahbobet]

There is this thing I do. There is a list of markets I will not work with.

I have not made large flailing noises on the internet saying so, or sent them snippy letters so they know how much I'm too cool for them or some like bullshit. Because this isn't about exercising power over someone, or being too cool. It's about what directions I want to take my business, the business of writing, in which I as CEO must decide with which other businesses to associate my name.

Here is why I am talking about this today. Take a break. Read the link.

I am not the arbiter and validator of other people's business decisions. Their businesses are not mine, and I am not placing judgment on the authors who work with Helix and are protesting people's responses to its editor's behaviour in that post and its comments. Helix, however, is one of the markets that I will not work with. That initial decision was not made entirely because of its editor's propensity for spouting off at the mouth in a racist and sexist fashion, but that was at least half of it. I don't want my name associated with Helix or William Sanders.

In that linked post and its comments, you have some pretty good authors who are now in a bad position: they're forced not to defend, but to not entirely condemn the bad behaviour of someone to whom they owe a professional obligation. I don't believe that any of those authors agree with this editor's attitudes regarding women and Muslims or find those attitudes acceptable. But their names are tied in now with Helix and William Sanders, and there is only so much they can do.

What you are seeing in nojojojo's post is called damage control. And fairly gracefully done. But learn from it, all ye readers: when Nora says "But don't tar and feather the authors in Helix just because of their association with him. That's just not right." it may well not be right.

But it's gonna happen nonetheless.

---

I'm bringing this up to point out one of the more important things I've learned about publishing:

Selling fiction, at whatever cost? To markets with sketchy reputations, or whose editors and publishers behave in sketchy ways?

Not worth it.

Publishing should be fun. Yes, it's a business pursuit, but it should leave a warm glow in your tummy. You should be able to look back in a few months or years at that publication and go "yes, that was a positive experience for me and the other guy too".

It should not be damage control.

Do business with people who will deal fairly with you and conduct themselves in good faith, who demonstrate an understanding of the social mores of the genre community and the standards of professionalism. Do business with people who give you contracts you actually want to sign, without that little qualm in your belly at 2am.

It is perfectly permissible to look at the behaviour of a market, or its proponents, and say to yourself "I will not submit my work there".

Yes, this is sometimes hard, especially if you're just starting out and have zero to a few sales to your name. They have something you want. And when you want a thing very badly, it is hard to cut people out of the herd who may be able to give it to you. But think about how you want it, too, and how you want to feel about it when you look back in ten years.

So set a standard for yourself. Apply it rigorously. And when someone does not meet it, even if they have an offer in hand?

Say thanks, but no thanks.

Because you don't want to be in that shitty situation. And because it'll make you a lot happier, as you chase down the path towards making your business a career.

Comments

[copperwise.livejournal.com]

THANK you. I was going to post nearly this very thing.

The thing is, we all get focused on getting published, and send out our stuff to any market we can think of. We think that we have to. But we really don't. We can still elect not to be associated with certain publications. People have wonderful writing careers without ever having been published in magazine X or Y or Z.

One does not have to make sweeping public dramatic divalicious statements about where one submits. This will bring about negative attention. One simply does not submit there.

You = very smart.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

The thing is, we all get focused on getting published, and send out our stuff to any market we can think of. We think that we have to. But we really don't.

Yes. Exactly. And it hurts my head and heart that writers, especially new writers, don't think they have the right to be discerning that way.

Discern! Discern freely! It's your career!

[hominysnark.livejournal.com]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart, or want to work for them, because I disagree with their policies. This is no different.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

It is not.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

Yes and amen. At the end of the day you have to be able to look yourself in the mirror.

[lisamantchev.livejournal.com]

*applause*

[ginny-t.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

[samhenderson.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to defend or decry where I've submitted work. But I agree entirely that it is not true that any publication is better than none, and that a writer is under no obligation to publish in any market that offers, and that a new (or old) writer has every right (and would be best advised to) look carefully at the context in which they will be presented.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

*nod* Worry not. You're not being asked for defense or decrying, at least not in this corner of the woods.

[samhenderson.livejournal.com]

Nope, didn't think I was.

But I do need to be slapped upside the head for responding to Dave Truesdale on the Asimov's forums. Please to do it.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

*bonk*

Do not engage the Truesdale. The Truesdale doesn't learn.

[samhenderson.livejournal.com]

*Ow.*
OK. Done now.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

A-friggin-men. Not that I'm writing, anymore, but...when I was, and when I was submitting, my decision on whether or not to submit to a given magazine was always influenced by the desire to be keeping good company. I wasn't going to make an effort to be published in any 'zine that I wouldn't be proud to have associated with my name.

I don't, of course, expect anybody to have the same standards that I have. Which I don't mean as a snide sort of "not everyone can be as cool as I am!" at all; some of my standards are a little ridiculous. But--I decided a while back that the most important thing to me is to be able to look myself in the eye. And once I had that figured out, everything else seemed to fall into place.

It's a good feeling.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Yeah -- good company's really the thing. Which is why I sub to places like Sybil's Garage, which doesn't pay to speak of and has very little distribution, but is full of awesome writers.

(I guess we could just call that the LCRW Equation, actually?)

[douglascohen.livejournal.com]

Very powerful stuff, Leah. Nicely said.

[squirrel-monkey.livejournal.com]

Exactly. We all have different level of comfort, and choose to ignore different publications. At the same time, sometimes things come out people never knew about, so.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they do. I'm hoping to speak more to the general than the specific incident.

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

Yes. Totally agreed. Many years ago I had a professional say the very same thing to me--you choose your markets, and if one goes places you aren't comfortable with--well, preserving the brand of your name is the important one.

[tchernabyelo.livejournal.com]

Well, I haven't subbed to Helix, let alone been published there - but I "know" (in the internet sense - i.e. have never met and probably never will) and respect writers who have (Sara Genge and Jennifer Pelland immediately spring to mind). And I don't think any the less of them for having been published there.

My first sub and pro sale was to Orson Scott Card's IGMS. I have since learned that many people have no truck with OSC because of his views on homosexuality. I now know of his views, and I disapprove of his views; but I'm not going to stop submitting to that market. I've seen a wide range of fiction there (and, again, writers I like and respect).

There is the personal and there is the professional. Yes, we are "artists", and there are strong arguments that art cannot be divorced from context. And yes, maybe I'm cutting my nose off to spite my face in getting published in magazines that other people don't approve of because of their connection with people that other people don't approve of.

But while this Sanders thing is big news here and now, it's a historical blip. Barely a twitch on the genre as a whole. OSC's homophobia is the same. I have no doubt that "dirt" could be dug up on some of the greats of the genre (I recall a recent, small but very vitriolic row when Arthur C Clarke died, over the mention of accusations that he was a pedophile). Some of the stories in Helix will be utterly forgotten, but others may far, far outlive their original appearance, and be utterly untainted by any connection to William "who?" Sanders.

Maybe I'm a traitor to the non-sexist, no-racist, non-bigoted ideals that I hold (and given that I'm a straight white male, even though I write about people of other genders, cultures and sexual orientation, that's an accusation that I have to be prepared to see, and have to examine myself whenever it's made, because I have "the privelege" and always need to remind myself of the perspective that I get from that). Maybe I should hold myself to some higher ideal. Maybe I'm just too old and tired, the way all idealists get, and the reason all ideals crumble.

I just want to write stories, and have people read those stories, and have people enjoy those stories. Some days, I really wish it wan't so damn complicated.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Again, your business is yours, and you choose which other businesses you want to associate your name with. Everyone draws different lines for the ethics of their business -- and that doesn't carry a subtext of and some people are unethical, just that everyone's line is somewhere. There's no expectation here that other people's lines ought to be the same as mine.

However, I'm not sure my point's come across. These decisions are less about what people will remember, what will be a historical blip, than which markets and people you will find yourself professionally satisfied, two months or two years or whatnot later, with having hitched your wagon to. In the case of Helix I'm citing as an example above, the point isn't that I'm worried who'd see me and think of me as supporting Sanders with my work and business, because yes, these things largely do blow over, although I note people still remember who was making excuses for him the first time this came around.

The point is that if that market offered me money -- and it's for a few reasons, both ethical and professional -- I don't think I'd want it. And I don't think I'd be happy accepting it, and supporting that market and its practices through the good-faith obligation I'd have to promote my story there.

It's not about who's looking. It's about what follows you home.

[tchernabyelo.livejournal.com]

Fair point. I try and make some kind of ethical decisions in my life, in purchasing terms, but I'm not fanatical about it because a). I just don't have time to research everything and make the judgement and b). there is a serious danger of setting standards that are so stringent that nothing meets them (I mean, sure I'd like not to buy clothes made in sweatshop conditions: but it's damned hard to find out what companies do and don't, behind the veils of subcontracting and supply chains). I guess that, yeah, when something obvious comes up and bites me, I think about it. I remember reading Helix early on and thinking that Sanders sounded like a pugnacious and very opinionated man (anyone who has their picture taken cradling a gun is sending out a message, and I don't like that message). For that and other reasons, I didn't sub to Helix, and I'm confident that won't change in the future. I will, on the other hand, keep subbing to (and being rejected by) Ideomancer... and IGMS.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

When IGMS first came out, the question of Card's politics was brought up, and a comparision was made to Writers of the Future, which is a Scientology front.

The difference I suggested at the time is that while WOTF is the "L. Ron Hubbard is cool and legitimate" contest, IGMS is not the International Gay-Mocking Society. That is, Card's politics aren't reflected in the ethos or content of the publications the way they are reflected in the ethos (if not the content) of WOTF.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

That is indeed a very apt difference.

[ogre-san.livejournal.com]

Amen. People may have varying definitions of what's "acceptable," but if you value your work you care about where it's seen and who it's associated with. This matters.

And we all too often forget the power of "no."

[nojojojo.livejournal.com]

I think you're right. Seriously. I agree with everything you've said.

But I have friends who are recently/currently published in Helix, and I can't just throw them under the bus. I hope you understand; for me this is a personal issue, one of the few circumstances in which I feel compelled to let emotion influence/alter principle. I spent much of last night literally sleepless over it. Came up with this (http://nojojojo.livejournal.com/137977.html) as a compromise, which still stops short of a full boycott. Damage control, yes -- not for Helix and absolutely not for Sanders, but for my fellow authors.

But I think you're right. There was no way out of this without the authors getting hurt. I just have to keep reminding myself that it's not me, or any of the people angry with Will Sanders right now, who's hurting them.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Yeah; this is all very difficult when it's your friends. I'm inclined to agree that you're not really in a position of guilt by speaking out about it (she said, all unsolicited opinions). Sanders hurts himself, and he hurts his publication by acting in the way he does; people speaking out about that behaviour are just pointing out the big pink elephant in the room.

While I think that's a good effort at a compromise? I suspect those stories -- unless people opt to repost them on their own webspace or something like that -- might end up being a loss. I'm not sure how amenable people will be to going out of their way to pay an author because their story was placed in a market that is under the microscope for bad behaviour. As a gut-check it's not something I'd personally be comfortable doing.

I am more than happy to read those authors in other venues, though, and will do so.

[chesyaburke.livejournal.com]

Very well said.