Writing: Things to Watch Out For

Below is listed an ad, which was reposted to a writer's list I'm on. Markets like this disturb me for several reasons. Albeit many short story markets only pay about $100 these days (some pay more and some less), but to actually pay only $100 for a 30,000 word story amounts to highway robbery on the publisher's part. One cent a word for that length would equal $300. You do the math on just how little you're getting paid. Of course, if you write the low end 1,500 word story you'll get about .07 a word.

Article writers get paid on average between .75 and $1.25 a word. SFWA says that professional rates for speculative fiction should be at least .05 a word. That would be $1,500. Now I've sometimes sent my stories to places that pay .03 cents or so. I'm still a fairly no name writer and there are many many writers out there. But there comes a point when you have to figure out what you'll prostitute yourself for, and I won't sell myself as cheap as below.

That low payment could fall into acceptable but what really gets me is that this publisher is asking for all rights. I don't know if this includes moral rights and I've talked about how that is the last right anyone should ever give up, but even so, they want all rights. For $100. Wow. That's not just first anthology rights or first electronic print rights, or first North American rights. That's all rights. Which means you can never sell your story again, never get more money to make up for the measly hundred bucks these guys gave you to steal all your rights. You pretty much don't own your story anymore.

If you work for a company and write on their dime, they in essence own all rights. However you still have moral rights in that you are credited with the work, unless you sign those away. Considering the big grab that these guys are doing, I wouldn't put it past them to take moral rights too. And all rights means that they could turn your piece into a film and you wouldn't get a penny, or they could hack it up to read like drek and you'd have no say.

Now sometimes these things are worded badly because new publishers don't understand which rights they should ask for. But I find that the statements about "if you're a new writer" tell me they know pros will not submit to such a place. As well, they do warn you that if you aren't happy with all rights being taken, then don't submit. There are other huge media magazines that buy all rights. The Cricket (Carus publishing) and related childrens' magazines are one. However, they tend to pay more and I don't really submit to them either.

The problem with all of this is that you get magazines and publishers who often say, we can't pay you anything. We do it for love and you have the privilege of getting your work published. However, the flip side is that they have the privilege of publishing your work and without writers they would have no magazine. If they find writing of worth, then they should pay what they think it's worth. I think it's okay for a new magazine to start small, not pay much but aspire to hoping to pay more for stories as they grow. I understand that people want to put out magazines and with the internet it's much easier, but everyone who can should be paying for the work. I too want to start a magazine one day but I won't do it until I know I can pay at least .03 a word to start. I don't want to dishonor writers, of which I'm one.

Writers are always the last to be paid, the ones that are often stinted in how much they get as well. Opulence magazine for which I wrote some articles, did the same thing; ripping off their writers and not paying them for years while the fat cats at the helm got glossier cars and homes. I've written about Opulence elsewhere. Of course individual magazines have to either get grants or raise funds through subscriptions and advertising. Still, writers should not be the ones that get less because all the other costs are more.

Oh and Vincent Hobbes, the novelist? Well, it seems the only writing he has done has been published by Hobbes End (one book) and there is very little information on this publisher. So Vincent published his own work and made a company. That makes me doubly cautious. But each person has their own brain. It's up to every writer just how little they think their work is worth. Of course, if I said each of my stories was worth a million bucks, and that's all I'd accept, I'd still be waiting to publish my first piece.

Novelist Vincent Hobbes is seeking short stories for an upcoming project which will feature a compilation of strange and bizarre stories. His publisher is currently accepting submissions from any author interested in
having his or her work published in a novel.

Manuscripts being accepted will include anything from the following fiction genres:
Horror
Supernatural
Science-fiction
Fantasy
Psychological thriller
Mystery

Requirements: Word count may be anything from 1,500-30,000 words. We are seeking stories that are original and not previously published. Interesting storylines with a preferable twist at the end to captivate the reader is desired. Think Twilight Zone. All stories must be tasteful-not overly gory, no inappropriate sex scenes, or an over use of profanity.

All submissions must adhere to the following guidelines:
Single-spaced 12-point font, Times New Roman Cover sheet must be included with all proper contact information

Whether you are a new author seeking to promote yourself, or simply someone who wants your family and friends to read your story in a published and widely distributed piece of literature, this is a rare opportunity to have your name and story published.

You may submit your story via mail or electronically. Details are as follows:

If mailed, send copy to:
Hobbes End Publishing, LLC

If sent electronically, send to:
publisher@hobbesendpublishing.com
Attn: Short Story Submission (subject line)

Deadline is October 1st, 2008

Terms: Full rights, both printing and media, will be purchased outright for $100.00 per story. Therefore, it will be un-publishable elsewhere without express permission from the publisher. Any author who does not agree to such terms, please do not submit your work for this project. Also, the best story will receive a bonus from the publisher.

The Difference Between China and South Africa

Years ago South Africa's human rights record was deplorable. Blacks were treated worse than second class citizens, were imprisoned, tortured and killed for whatever reason struck the white minority. It had been going on for a very long time.

Eventually the collective conscience of the world woke up to some degree and they started hitting where it hurt: in not taking merchandise from S. Africa.It started first in 1959 in Great Britain forming into the anti-apartheid movement. A boycott against fruit, cigarettes and other goods imported from S. Africa was called and eventually by 1970 S. Africa was being ousted from any international sporting federation. In 1988 various stars held a concert/protest at Wembley Stadium in England demanding Nelson Mandela's release. British banks and companies began to sell off and get rid of S. African subsidiaries and exports. http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/aamhist.html

I'm no economist but the boycotts plus the shaking of the finger of shame at S. Africa seemed to have an effect. Our liquor stores didn't carry S. African wines and I'm sure other items were boycotted. But it took thirty-five years until the first truly egalitarian elections in 1994. Thirty-five years.

But S. Africa did change. Their goods have been accepted again into other countries when their human rights level improved. Now, what about China.

We could mention the Tienanmen Square uprising of 1989 as a violation of human rights that saw anywhere between 200 (what China put out) and 3,000 (what the Red Cross and Chinese student associations listed) killed because they protested the government's nondemocratic ways. We could also mention the Chinese occupation of free-ruling Tibet in 1950. Who could stand against a fraction of the Chinese population (8,000 in the Tibetan army against 40,000 Chinese)?
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white2.html

Now let's see, about thirty-five years to get S. Africa to overturn its apartheid policy. 1950-2007. That's fifty-seven years of occupation for the Chinese in Tibet. The Tibetan government and the Dalai Lama live in exile. And what's been done to bring the Chinese to task for these human rights violations? A blind eye. They get to host the 2008 summer Olympics. S. Africa is kicked out of all sports organizations and China is awarded.

Why? I'm no political scientist but it seems it's just not politically or economically expedient for world governments to say anything about these violations (as it took forever in Rwanda or Afghanistan or a host of other places). No one is willing to invade China because they're a super power. They're big geographically and population wise, and of course there's that firepower aspect.

But why are there no economic sanctions against this country? With 1/5 of the world's population, can the world manage to boycott China? Yes, they could. Other countries would pour in to fill the gap cause by the lack of Chinese goods. It might be more expensive but what price, freedom? Obviously it doesn't matter that much as long as it's not your freedom. And is not a country or a person complicit by not condemning the deeds they usually say are abhorrent if they support the countries that perpetuate those deeds?

Too bad human rights are seen as only worthwhile to defend when the politics and the economy support them. Some day, hopefully soon, maybe Tibet will get back their rights, their land, their culture and their religion.