Chaos is Order:
The Benefit of Refusing to Develop a Business Plan
by Michael Gallant
We at QM are proud to announce that, after three years of sketchy
adherence to deadlines, decisions made in haste, drunken debates in
the wee hours, editorials which directly attack our chosen genre and
industry, and stories that nobody else would touch with a ten foot rejection
letter but were fucking brilliant, we now stand hailed as one of Writers'
Digest's top thirty sites for new writers. We are ranked as one of Yahoo's
top ten most popular science fiction web sites.
Are we surprised? Thrilled? Confused? Maybe just a bit.
Mostly, we are smug and indifferent.
Why this attitude, instead of graciously thanking the Academy for
the honor of the recognition, despite our obvious transgression?
Because we know that, basically, we rock.
Our success is because of, and not in spite of our hideous business
practices.
We decided at its inception that QM would be about the writing and
the writers. Nothing else. Ok, maybe the artwork and artist too. Sorry
for the omission, it's hard to type with the DT's.
Anyway, we made it a point that we would not be influenced in any
way by commercial concerns. If you have any doubts about that, ask our
creditors. Yes, we do sell the occasional banner ad or copy of our anthology
(not enough copies, though, you slackers) but we choose our stories
and format based on our own skewed sense of their artistic merit. Many
of our issues contain stories that appeal to only a few readers. Many
of those we loved but didn't feel would impress anyone else were some
of our most popular, thus proving that we haven't the foggiest idea
what will really sell. Any mention of marketing or business strategy
at a QM editors' meeting is met with open hostility.
That's why this works. Because we don't give a rat's ass whether
it does or not.
We can take risks because we have no fear of failure. If nobody
reads our next issue, we'll still laugh, get drunk and put one up the
following month, probably with a bitter editorial about how none of
our readers could sober up enough to remember our URL.
We can even insult our base of writers because, if the level of
adherence to our guidelines is any indication, none of them actually
read our zine beyond the pay rate anyway. They sure as hell don't read
the part about how long they can expect to wait for payment. Or run
in the same circles as our creditors for that matter or they'd know
better than to ask where their money is.
We can take chances on new writers.
Ok, I know every zine, paper and electronic and probably those chiseled
on slate who rejected the first three drafts of the Ten Commandments
to make more room for the latest scandal with King David (Bathshebagate,
if memory serves), makes this claim. I know you're all hearing how the
check's in your mouth and I won't come in the mail, but we mean it.
Wait, wait! I have proof! It's here...Somewhere under this pile
of hatemail and summonses...Ah! Here it is. An editor of a "Real"
magazine engaged our editor Ray in a very polite discussion (Ray, unlike
myself, can still have these) about the volume of new writers his and
other large magazines published, and presented these statistics:
F&SF, 19 new writers
Asimov's, 10 new writers
Realms of Fantasy, 12 new writers
Analog, 17 new writers
Now, this list is of new authors published from 1997 on, and these
are his data, not ours, mostly because I can't be bothered to do research,
but if you look at it, in five years, all four of these have published
58 new authors. Not bad, you say?
Ok, in three years, QM has published an average of six new authors
per month. Aside from D F Lewis, we didn't ever publish an established
writer. We have repeated a few, and some who we published went on to
other more lucrative projects (aside from food service or panhandling),
but we remain essentially a market for the new, undiscovered but talented
writer. So, we have printed triple the number of new authors that the
big four have featured, and in sixty percent of the time.
I will pause while you absorb this. And to freshen my drink.
We aren't really trying to trash the other fiction markets. Oh,
it's fun and all, but it's a pleasant diversion more than a mission.
We do feel that all speculative fiction markets should be in this together.
There's plenty of talent to go round, and not enough money to be worth
fighting about.
Speaking of money, the same editor who chatted with Ray pointed
out that the publisher is not responsible (I agreed until I realized
he hadn't finished his statement) for the economic well being of the
writer, but that of the publishing house. I disagree. The feeling of
responsibility to the bottom line of the publishing house is what drives
the current fantasy book market to skillion page Tolkien ripoffs, and
the s/f market to StarTrek/Star Wars/Babylon 5 fan fiction churned out
by the underpaid and purchased by the kilo. It's what drove the movie
industry's fantasy division to produce the "Dungeons and Dragons"
movie, about which the less said the better.
Basically, we feel that art and business should never touch. I think
they were first melded by either Satan or Walt Disney, but I forget
which. Or even if it matters.
We are not attempting to run this anything like a business. Although
we do have better numbers than Enron or Worldcom, and they had marketing
departments. Our goal is not money. Which is a damn good thing, considering
how few of you cheap bastards bought our book.
What is the answer for the industry, if commercial concerns bow
to artistic ones? How can publishers stay solvent? I hear you ask. Beats
me. Maybe they could have Arthur Andersen do the books.
I do know the answer for the individual author. Write what you love,
but don't quit your day job. I haven't.
For QM the answer is to keep doing what we feel is good, for the
reader, the writer and the genre, without regard to financial concerns.
At least until we totally run out of cash or it's no fun anymore.
Then I think we'll screw the zine, build a still and start running
moonshine. It's all basically the same. We just want to spread our own
brand of happiness.
Discuss
this editorial at our comment board