Analog Submissions

(Is it a personal or a form rejection when they say "Sorry, we cannot use this at the moment. Torgersen has the next 10 issues booked out.....)

Woah! Was I thinking that, or did I say it out loud....?

Just as well Brad ain't around to see it.....

Brad's not the one you have to worry about. He's not an editor (yet).

But be glad Stanley Schmidt didn't see it! You might give him ideas... "Hmmm... An all-Torgersen issue... That might work..."

[Brad's not the one you have to worry about. He's not an editor (yet).

But be glad Stanley Schmidt didn't see it! You might give him ideas... "Hmmm... An all-Torgersen issue... That might work..."

It’s a bit hush-hush at the moment, but in 2012 Analog is changing its title to Torgersen magazine of science fiction and fact . The non-fiction articles will be a list of Chuck Norris facts with Brad’s name replacing Chuck’s.

By the way, I finished reading The Mother Anthony last night. An excellent story and it's a real pity it didn't get a pro-sale.

Nick

By the way, I finished reading The Mother Anthony last night. An excellent story and it's a real pity it didn't get a pro-sale.

Nick

Thank you, Nick! After my long day of tedious work, you made my night!

Thank you, Nick! After my long day of tedious work, you made my night!

I'm glad, though I wish my blurb carried as much weight as Jerry Pournelle's. You can slip my recommendation into random forum posts.

How about you put the following blurb on the front of a redesigned cover?

Random internet guy Nick Tchan says that he agrees with Jerry Pournelle about how exciting and emotional this story is.

Two birds with one stone as it were.

Thank you, Nick! After my long day of tedious work, you made my night!

I'm glad, though I wish my blurb carried as much weight as Jerry Pournelle's. You can slip my recommendation into random forum posts.

Yes, this! Ha!

Thank you, Nick! After my long day of tedious work, you made my night!

I'm glad, though I wish my blurb carried as much weight as Jerry Pournelle's. You can slip my recommendation into random forum posts.

How about you put the following blurb on the front of a redesigned cover?

Random internet guy Nick Tchan says that he agrees with Jerry Pournelle about how exciting and emotional this story is.

Two birds with one stone as it were.

Random internet guy? Hardly. You're a WotF winner! That's anything but random.

Random internet guy? Hardly. You're a WotF winner! That's anything but random.

I met Nick at Conflux, had a couple of long chats, shared an ale and so on.

Nah, he's pretty random, actually.

😉

Steve

I met Nick at Conflux, had a couple of long chats, shared an ale and so on.

Nah, he's pretty random, actually.

😉
Steve

Steve,

You're mistaking odd for random.

Nick

Dear Tom,

Thank you very much for letting me see "Dream Vacation." We regret that we cannot make use of it at this time.

All submissions will be examined as promptly as possible, and if suitable, will be paid for on acceptance.

yada yada,

—Please don’t ask for individual criticism. With hundreds of submissions per month, it is physically impossible to answer them all personally. Many writing errors are quite subtle, and extremely difficult to define clearly in a sentence or two.

Sincerely,
Stanley Schmidt
Editor

Off to another market.

Off to another market.

Sorry, Tom, but at least you've got a healthy attitude.

Sounds like Dr. Schmidt is finally playing catch-up (and Duotrope shows further signs). I'll likely be joining you soon. 61 days and counting...

I almost have the feeling of quitting sending submissions to Analog. Only because their forum rejection letter is a bit...well, let's just say if you can't describe an error in 2-3 sentences, I don't think there is an error.

I almost have the feeling of quitting sending submissions to Analog. Only because their forum rejection letter is a bit...well, let's just say if you can't describe an error in 2-3 sentences, I don't think there is an error.

If it's an inexperienced writer there could be a number of mistakes and it's not Analog's job to itemize these mistakes for us. The tiered form rejection system is [super, amazingly] nice, but not a requirement of a good magazine. They still pay pro rates.

Of course, I am more inclined to send my story to a pro market with tiered rejections, personal rejections, and fast turn around times first. But I'm not going to count myself out of a market because I don't like their form letter.

Administrative note: I got at least two or three dozen form rejections from Analog -- no clue on why I was being rejected -- before I got my first personalized rejections. Which were ultimately followed by sales.

The lesson: try not to read too much into Analog form rejections. Your goals with Analog should be a) read the magazine, to become familiar with Dr. Schmidt's needs and tastes, and b) submit fairly frequently, so that Dr. Schmidt can become familiar with you and/or begin seeing a trajectory of quality.

My first subs to Dr. Schmidt were pretty bad, but over time, things got better. It's been said before that Stan (and Sheila, at Asimov's) won't buy your first "buyable" story, they will buy your fourth or fifth. They're each seeking stable producers who will have the potential to become regulars. They're not necessarily looking for one-off or irregular writers.

JMHO.

I posted the rejection mostly so the new writers who find their way to this forum can see that everyone receives the same kinds of rejections. It's not personal, its business. I don't begrudge Analog for this kind of rejection and I will continue to submit the stories I feel are a best fit with them undaunted by any future rejections those stories may get.

(And for the benefit of non Duotrope followers, that was a 39 day rejection. The story is already at it's next market.)

My first subs to Dr. Schmidt were pretty bad, but over time, things got better. It's been said before that Stan (and Sheila, at Asimov's) won't buy your first "buyable" story, they will buy your fourth or fifth. They're each seeking stable producers who will have the potential to become regulars. They're not necessarily looking for one-off or irregular writers.

I think that's the first time on this subject, Brad, that you've specifically said "fourth or fifth". The road is yet again longer than I had realized!

Mind you, that's both anecdote and theory.

But, having met and spoken with both Sheila and Stan, I tend to believe it.

In my case, I'd gotten a brief number of personalized rejections from Dr. Schmidt, throughout 2009, leading up to my first sale in January of 2010.

I do think Stan was waiting until I'd demonstrated sufficient consistency, before he took, "Outbound."

Which, thankfully, turned out fo be a very popular story with the readership.

Before participating on this forum I used to imagine that WOTF would track submissions over time looking for consitency. I hadn't thought of that for publishers but it would be a smart strategy.

I think that's the way Dean & Kris explain it as well, so I'm sure you're not far off, Brad. I know I've heard the Topangia Canyon story more than once from Dean in relation to a writer that gave up, right before they were about to make it. All the editors knew the guys name and were waiting for "the next story" to buy and he never sent another one.

I almost have the feeling of quitting sending submissions to Analog. Only because their forum rejection letter is a bit...well, let's just say if you can't describe an error in 2-3 sentences, I don't think there is an error.

If it's an inexperienced writer there could be a number of mistakes and it's not Analog's job to itemize these mistakes for us. The tiered form rejection system is [super, amazingly] nice, but not a requirement of a good magazine. They still pay pro rates.

Of course, I am more inclined to send my story to a pro market with tiered rejections, personal rejections, and fast turn around times first. But I'm not going to count myself out of a market because I don't like their form letter.

I understand that. But, to say there are subtle errors they cannot describe comes off to me as a bit snobbish. It would read better if they said somethign along the lines of what you said, Strycher. But, when they say check for these common problems and one is "subtle errors we cannot describe," just say "we may not have cared for the story."

But, then again, I've had years of being a writing tutor. If I can't put it into 2-3 sentences, then I don't bring it up. It only serves to irk someone when I say "There's something wrong with your work, but I can't put my finger on it..."

I think there are people in the job to find errors and teach and there are people who just know what to look for...they are not necessarily the same people.

Every rejection should just be read in the writers head like this: The story was not a good fit (regardless of what it actually says). Otherwise you'll go crazy.

I tend to focus on writing and improving the areas I can, not on rejections/possible sales. Otherwise I'd burn out.

Every rejection should just be read in the writers head like this: The story was not a good fit (regardless of what it actually says). Otherwise you'll go crazy.

Of course, I think we all know that how it ACTUALLY reads is more like "This story was UTTER GARBAGE, YOU HAIRY-FACED MACAROON-EATING NINCOMPOOP."

Or, er... is that just me?

Oh, no, Stewart, that's exactly how mine read, too. Those darned form rejections!

At least they often include a coconut macaroon, which is tasty.

your rejectiopns come with cookies? where are you submitting?

Of course, I think we all know that how it ACTUALLY reads is more like "This story was UTTER GARBAGE, YOU HAIRY-FACED MACAROON-EATING NINCOMPOOP."

Or, er... is that just me?

I fail to see how "macaroon-eating" constitutes an insult. Especially if they're good macaroons.

You really should see this Analog rejection: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpos ... count=2129

Which apparently reads "I'm really not sure what to make of this one. It's well-written, but decidedly weird, in a walking-talking-salmon, mind-expanding-hazelnut kind of way."

Mmmmm! Hazelnuts...

I think that's the way Dean & Kris explain it as well, so I'm sure you're not far off, Brad. I know I've heard the Topangia Canyon story more than once from Dean in relation to a writer that gave up, right before they were about to make it. All the editors knew the guys name and were waiting for "the next story" to buy and he never sent another one.

The Topanga Canyon story -- as related to me in both 2006 and 2009 -- is one of those "scared straight" stories that convinced me to stop futzing about, feeling sorry for myself, hanging my head, and get back to just writing as much as I could, sending it out, and not allowing self-doubt to get in my way.

Every rejection should just be read in the writers head like this: The story was not a good fit (regardless of what it actually says). Otherwise you'll go crazy.

Of course, I think we all know that how it ACTUALLY reads is more like "This story was UTTER GARBAGE, YOU HAIRY-FACED MACAROON-EATING NINCOMPOOP."

Or, er... is that just me?

No not just you at all....

I wonder where that fits on the straight rejection tier... My guess is it's below: "This is trash. Let me introduce you to this donkey on a typewriter who might hopefully teach you to write." And probably above: "Did you run out of token market to send this too and think I won't notice it from four years ago? We posted this on the wall as the most famous worst story ever."

At the bottom they still sign off with: "We look forward to your next submission." Which I can only read as sarcasm after the above statements. THIS is the true problem with form letters.

At the bottom they still sign off with: "We look forward to your next submission." Which I can only read as sarcasm after the above statements. THIS is the true problem with form letters.

//falls over laughing//

I wonder where that fits on the straight rejection tier... My guess is it's below: "This is trash. Let me introduce you to this donkey on a typewriter who might hopefully teach you to write."

Hey! Our resident donkey on a typewriter is a very good writer! People could learn from him!

I wonder where that fits on the straight rejection tier... My guess is it's below: "This is trash. Let me introduce you to this donkey on a typewriter who might hopefully teach you to write."

Hey! Our resident donkey on a typewriter is a very good writer! People could learn from him!

Yes, I was speaking from experience with the above. *here is where a smilie would have been* The donkey does a really good job teaching writing.