Slushpile Interview: ASIM's Readers (Part Two)

The slush readers for Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine continue in their combined effort to frustrate me, refusing to be baited by my leading questions. (See Part One if you missed it.)

How has your perspective changed since you began?

Wessely: Oh, I’m FAR more picky now than I used to be! I’m also much better at judging stories outside my own personal tastes. I try to be more critical of what I read, and I often think, "yes, it’s a good story, but is it GREAT? Is there something special about this that will appeal to an editor enough to fill pages with it?"

Haynes: Okay, at first I wanted to grab the almost-there stories and tell the authors how to fix them. But then they would have been my stories, not theirs. It's not luck, it's not who you know - just make sure your story has all the elements and is written as well as, or better than, the stories you've read in the mag. (If you haven't read an issue of the mag you're submitting to, you are so wasting your time.)

Battersby: I'm less tolerant of "lightweight" stories than I used to be. Short stories, in particular, have to confront and undermine the status quo, not reinforce it. Even if the author sets out to write a humorous quest fantasy with cheeky hobbit sidekicks (and may syphilis rot your descendants if you do), they need to act against the 'comfort-eating' aspects of literature. It's a crowded field. Attitude counts.

'Charlie': I am more often tempted not to read the whole thing. I have come round to the opinion though that if a story can't bring me in within the first four paragraphs then it is quite flawed. I do still read to the end to give the author a fair consideration of what I think could be improved if I am rejecting it. Basically, anything that causes me to be jolted out of the story world the author has created is a bad thing.

Tell me numbers. How many, how fast, how often, how few deserving of attention?

Wessely: ASIM is in the high 7000s for submissions [over] five and a half years, an average of around 1400 a year. Luckily I haven’t had to read them all myself! When I slush, I might read five or six a week usually, but a lot more when I’m editing [an upcoming issue].

Haynes: New slush readers often let through borderline stories because they think editors can work with the author to really turn an average story into something special. Well, editors already have a lot of good stories to choose from so this doesn't happen very often. Out of 100, 80-90 are an immediate 'no thanks'. Writing not up to scratch, no ending, no point, clone of a recent TV episode, gruesome horror, you name it. 10-20 are maybes, worth a second look by another reader. And sometimes one is a standout.

Battersby: In general, of every ten stories I read, maybe three will strike me as worth a second look. Of those three, maybe one in every nine or twelve will strike me as being something original. I've read a lot of SF over the years. Very few stories don't have readily memorable precedents. For [magazine slush reading], I'd average a dozen or so stories a month, which isn't a huge turnover by any means. Competitions are different. I've judged a few, and reading 100-120 stories in a fortnight wouldn't be unusual.

'Charlie': All are deserving of attention but some get more than others. When a story really draws me in I still find myself reading it just for the pleasure of a good read.

What proportion of the slushpile is: Right for your market (whether or not it makes it)?

'Charlie': 90% 

Wessely: 2/7

Haynes: Most of it.

Battersby: Less than a third. Ultimately, outside of quote requirements, I'd probably publish 5-10% of stories I've received purely on their literary merits.

Wrong but otherwise publishable?

'Charlie': 5% 

Wessely: 1/7

Haynes: Very little. We've published some dark horror in the past, even though our guidelines discourage it. But if I'm slushing and I get a gross-out story with nasty elements to it, it's a no and I don't care how well written it is.

Battersby: Again, less than a third. A number of stories published by almost every magazine are published because of space requirements rather than the quality of the story itself, so there's always a home for a competently written tale, even if it doesn't fit my particular requirements.

Lacking a certain something?

'Charlie': 40% 

Wessely: 4/7

Haynes: Most of it. It's a common fault.

Battersby: The vast majority. Anywhere up to 90% of stories, including many that I see in print, fulfil all the basic requirements of a competent story without possessing, in any way, anything to raise them above the rest of the slushpile. Such stories tend to find a readership because they don't confront the reader, who's seen it all before and isn't afraid of it. Equally, if they never find a home, the author will be left scratching their head as to why, when the reason is as simple as the fact that the editor has seen it all before, and better. 

Sophomoric?

'Charlie': 10% 

Wessely: 2/7

Haynes: I don't keep count. I used to read every story right to the bitter end, but after a while you get wily and give up after 3-4 pages, jump ahead 50 pages to see whether the farmboy is king yet, then zap the submission.

Battersby: Almost everybody goes through this phase, assuming they sell more than a story or two over the years. Stories in this category are probably the second largest variety I come across: the simple "I've read a lot of 50s SF" stuff; the "all-men are bad" feminist manifestoes, or worse, their male, anti-woman equivalents; the Bradbury clones; the Ellison clones; God help me, the Jordan clones. This stuff isn't bad, per se. It's just lazy and ignorant of history, and easily rejected.

Grossly incompetent?

'Charlie': 2% 

Wessely: 1/7

Haynes: Not really. It's art, not mathematics or engineering, so measuring competence is hard unless you're talking literacy (and I see you're about to.)

Battersby: It happens. Anyone can write a story. Writing it well is another matter entirely. Most of the time, this kind of story is written by someone who has no idea about the genre they've chosen. If they continue to churn out such stuff, well, you don't hear about them for very long.

Functionally illiterate?

'Charlie': 0% 

Wessely: 1/7

Haynes: Very little. Most of the subs are quite well- to very well written. You see some mags arguing that opening themselves up to electronic subs would lead to a swamp filled with poor quality mush, but we haven't seen that.

Battersby: Very few, actually. It takes a rare type of self-belief to write something so abysmally bad and then couple it to a belief that it's only good enough for the small and micro press. Most of the insanely awful creators bypass our level of the industry and go straight to inflicting their precious gifts upon the slushpiles of Asimov's and F&SF. Once those markets reject them, they either lose heart or start paying more attention to the PublishAmerica ads.

(Part Three to follow.)