Pulp Fiction · Legacy archive
standards for acceptance into publication
-
standards for acceptance into publication
#1This was floating around in my mind over the weekend and since Aramax also mentioned this in the other thread, I might as well open up another dedicated thread to it. So what is the standard we want to set for accepting a story/poem into publicaiton for the epub?
There are several aspects to think about:
Do we use the current Citadel voting system (0-5 with 0.5 increments) or just ditch that and go with a vote for in/out for a particular story/poem?
If we go with the Citadel voting system, do we say 3 is in or do we aim for higher standards? I can think of argument for both ways. Mainly that higher standards will make publication longer but then obviously at the end of the day we want to deliver high quality stuff to attract our market.
If we go with just in/out, what is the min. numbers of in votes for actual acceptance or should that be a proportion?
I was sort of aiming for a system where both writers and independent critics would be voting on whether a piece of work should be accepted or not. But what is the appropriate weighting to assign the two groups? Equal weighting normally but I'm somehow feeling like that acting as writer and proof-editing at the same time could possibly colour my objectivity so I don't know.
This is another thread that is jumping way ahead but ah well, just putting it out here for discussion. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#2We can ask the "Sad Puppies" to decide for us.
I think it will be somewhat organic until we really know what we are doing and see how things go. One of my first things I hope to do after September 14 is get access and read everything.
We can do votes, we can let the main editor choose. We can rework the things we think need fixed or discuss what we think might not work. I tend to think that when it comes to publishing, if we are honest with each other, it will be pretty obvious what we will want to print. Once we get a few more readers that is. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#3Even bringing this up is a really bad idea.
We should worry less about what kind of writers we want to be and worry more about actually writing.
Let us keep this a potluck publication among friends for now.
But I am going to put forth two goals for this current project: maximum and minium
Max Goal: Develop a serial paying market publication by utilizing citadel in-house talent, and eventually opening up as pro-level publication.
Min Goal: Send out a potluck publication of citadel fiction in amazon eBook form as Scras originally suggested.
What is the difference between a dream and a goal? A deadline.
-
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#4That's why I wasn't originally going to put up this thread now but well Aramax mentioned this on the progress log thread so....
Yes, I get you Axle, I (we all) should concentrate more on my writing which I have neglected for the past week. Okay, we shall "freeze" this thread for now, until we have gotten at least 8 stories that are more or less on par with draft 5 of your first story.
-
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#5I dis agree axle. Maybe this very second is a little too early for this discussion but The earlier we get standards in place the better.Most of the peeps here have developed a thick skin from the critisism,(Mines not that thick but its by far better than in my early days)
The bigger the commitee the more unruly, I would like to see a structured editorial board (or even several)
I do not want to participate in this,that way
Writers should get a Voice not a Vote on their own work
One thing I would like to be in on in an editorial way is the art. I have an idea or two for a couple of sources and am willing to serve in whatever capacity you guys want. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#6I thought about it and realized. I have the one thing that most of you don't. Time.I am a stay at home"Mom" and Monday -Wendsday could def contribute
To critisism.Not Proofreading(I didnt realy have to say that did I?) It kinda goes against my nature to say negitive thing about others work, but thats my hurtle to get over.So with a little trepadation ,I'm in for critic duty if you want me. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#7Why don't you give us a summary of your vision of this project. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#8
Why don't you give us a summary of your vision of this project.
MISSION Statment 1
Strolens DESERVES a wider audiance:Achieved through excellance in creativity closly monitered by editorial staff
Mission statment 2
A clearly defined editorial/content policy : do we include Sci-fi? just fantsy? Modern tales w/ slight fantastical elements?
GOAL 1 A defined Hierarcy
A)an over all advisory board of exactly 3 members with total authority
B)2 editorial boards of exactly three members(writers able to appeal rejection only with unanimus vote)no cross over
C)An Art editorial board of exactly 3 members
This can be achieved with about7-8 people
GOAL 2
unanimous decision on format
(my 2 cents)
Quartly ezine(mostly by page count)
70% fiction(at least one novella serialized to encourage repeat cust.)
20% gaming
10% poetry(if that)
Light art pepper throught(must aply DIRECTLY to associated piece)
GOAL 3
VERY large back log of publish able material
(for a quarterly at least80% of 3 isssues)
achieved through heavy solicitaion of Strolen members
as deverse aselection as possible
GOAL 4
Have Fun With it -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#9@Strolen: Do we have the ability to publish material from inactive members?I know you guys reprinted my one piece in Jonn Fores Roleplaying tips with out my permision (Not complaining,stating fact) -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#10The real line here is if it is commercial or not. To sell, we would need the active approval of the authors in question.
For example, the Horror Epub I am almost finished uses works from existing authors, including those no longer active. This is done since most subs are under the:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
So, so long as citation is made and its free - no problem.
Pulp fiction, or whatever it ends up named, to my understanding is Commercial and so can only use new or material for which permission has been granted.
-
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#11Why don't we see if we can launch this potluck publication first and then worry about developing a paying market ezine -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#12
GOAL 1 A defined Hierarcy
A)an over all advisory board of exactly 3 members with total authority
B)2 editorial boards of exactly three members(writers able to appeal rejection only with unanimus vote)no cross over
C)An Art editorial board of exactly 3 members
This can be achieved with about7-8 people
The editorial board is sth that I have in mind (not exactly but similar) with the independent critics. I want to nominate Val and Muro to be up there. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#13
So with a little trepadation, I'm in for critic duty if you want me.
Me and I think Axle too are always looking for more critics as well as general feedback among writers within the group. So go ahead and jump in. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#14Okay, to Aramax - this pub with the fiction and poetry is not covering normal submissions.
What you are envisioning is pretty much in line with the ideas behind the Horror epub, and other ideas you can find under the Strolenti (Placeholder name). I won't discuss that pub further in this thread - feel free to being discussions on that board.
This epub that is containing fiction and poetry is a different animal in the eventual intent - per Scras's original request - was to be able to produce a commercial epub that could pay its authors.
Lets focus on fiction with this one for now.
I'm happy to throw in as another pair of eyes. I'll start looking and commenting soon.
-
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#15Time to revive this. I agree 100% with Strolen that first thing to do is to get more readers to comment so authors can soak it all in and make improvements. But there is still the unresolved issue of the quality of submissions. Earlier on, Axle has spelled out a min and max goal in terms of quality for this venture and to be honest, I was extremely and still is so against the min goal (it's fine logic for getting people writing without blocks but not acceptable for the final product). I'm in this venture because I'm part of the Strolenati community and would love to see the high quality work here reaching to a far wider audience. The min goal conjures a kind of image where I'm dumping some inferior work that I'm personally unsatisfied with on readers who would probably find no value in it too. I'm seriously going to withdraw any work of mine that doesn't meet my own internal quality criteria so by that nature, I feel like I'm bound to have a brush with it if we go for this min goal for the end product.
On a finer level, Axle has specified that he wanted 5 stories in at least. We have exactly that number atm and might have 1 extra before the deadline. But I don't know what stance he wants to take if we have less than 5 stories that substantial numbers of Strolenati think is ready for public consumption. As most who've known me a while should have figured out, I'm not a dictator and I still want this open as an intellectual convo/debate but I'm emotionally invested in this venture enough so that I have my own stance to maintain. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#16While we're still at collecting feedback from commenters stage, I think we're now ready to talk about the nuts and bolts of deciding on story quality. How about the following format:
Each commenter (authors of stories included) says whether the story is ready for public eyes or not. This readiness is totally in the eyes of the reader him/herself but a yes should mean a work with definite quality-a solid piece of fiction that is ready to be released as published material, not a "I'm friends with this guy/gal and I don't want to hurt his/her feelings" OR a "This flies really low on the radar but I want to give it some sympathy scores to boost it over the line" type of 'solidness'. Opting for this approach to simplify things and so we don't obsess over differences of 0.5 in scores (like I personally do :lol:).
Not sure whether we just provide comments ala Citadel style given that we already have the feedback threads in forum. But this is convo about agreement on format re: assessing story merits, so I guess comments is a subsidiary concern at that point esp. since feedback already collated at earlier stage. -
Re: standards for acceptance into publication
#17Okay, new development: story selection is closed circle amongst authors only via vote-by-majority decision amongst authors but votes of worthiness and comments still welcome from readers.