What It's Like Being a First Reader
I'm sure the few of you who read my weekly installments here are writers (my analytic figures for reads on my pieces on writing are a fair indicator). Thus I'm sure you've all had experiences with submitting work to literary journals and getting rejected.
I'm in the same boat as you guys. When I was a high school kid, writing his first, god-awful novel--which I had the audacity to send out to agents--I got nothing but rejections. Even when I was writing through college, submitting terrible little short stories to classy literary magazines, like The New Yorker (because that's how arrogant I was), I still got nothing but rejections. And for good reason: I sucked at writing fiction, and I didn't know how to get better.
Now, as a workshop alum, I have a far better critical acumen than I did before. This has both improve my writing for the better and made it more difficult to just spin out a first draft. When I see a problem, my first instinct has become to go fix it before proceeding (if I did, I might never move forward, so I have to resist the urge and plow on).
One of the ways I've elected to sharpen and better this critical skill set has been to become, what's known as, a "First Reader" for a Literary Magazine.
The magazine I work for is called James Gunn's Ad Astra. It's a small SF magazine published through the University of Kansas - Lawrence, the same place that hosts the Gunn Center for the Study of Science Fiction (CSSF). It was there, last June, that I attended their annual CSSF Short Fiction Writing Workshop (submissions for which open up tomorrow, FYI).
It was also there that I made the acquaintance of Ad Astra's editor-in-chief, Jean Asselin. Evidently, I managed to make some kind of impression on him--likely from my critiques rather than from my work (I wrote mostly fantasy, of which he is not a fan)--because towards the end of my time at the workshop, he offered me the job of working as a First Reader for the magazine.
I've used that phrase twice thus far, and I haven't explained exactly what it means. (Allow me to fix that.)
A First Reader is exactly what it sounds like. Our (there are loads of us) editors give us a selection of a given period's slush submissions, and we read through them to determine which ones get through to the next round of acceptances and, unfortunately, which ones get rejected straight away.
I should also explain that, when it comes to editing and submissions at magazines, there's a hierarchy. (Where isn't there one?)
At the very top of our pyramid is Jean, editor-in-chief. He's the one who has the final most say on what gets published from any given period. But, he only receives the best of the best to take his pick from.
Below him are the "Section Editors". In addition to Fiction, AA also publishes nonfiction and poetry, so there editors for each of those fields as well. Given the disparity in submissions from one department to another, we First Readers mainly read the fiction slush pile, and thus the stories we think are the best, we then turn into our fiction editor.
Thus, in order to get published, your story has to bare up to three rounds of critical review. A first reader must think it's good (both on a story level and technical level). A Section Editor has to like it enough to then pass it onto the Editor-in-Chief, and then the Editor-in-Chief has to like it too and have space for it. It's a real bottle neck, but with limited space for publishing and limited funds for paying those who do get published, there has to be one by necessity. It's the publishing equivalent of natural selection.
Thus, the Hierarchy goes:
1. Editor-in-Chief
2. Section Editor
3. First Reader
If you need an analogy to help remember it, think of it this way (those of you who've worked retail will understand):
The Editor-in-Chief is the Store Owner.
The Section Editor is the Store/Departmental Manager.
The First Reader is the peon who works the store floor.
(I should also mention that First Readers don't actually get paid to do what we do. That's why we're at the bottom of the pyramid).
Now, you may be asking questions. What exactly is a First Reader looking for? What does it take to get passed up that hierarchy to even have a chance to get published?
It's really a combination of two things.
One--and I hate to say it, but it's true--is personal taste. All First Readers are readers above everything else, and therefore, we have things we like and don't like. Your theoretical story could be written in the most gorgeous, envy-inducing style but if it doesn't grip us, we'll pass on it. You might think that isn't fair, but take a moment to think about it. We represent a small scale version of our magazine's readership; if we don't like your story, there's a good chance our readers won't either.
The second, however, evens the playing field, and that's pure writing competence. There are certain signs we First Readers look for to tell whether or not a story is worth publishing, and they're all craft elements. Loose, clunky, or purple prose, numerous typos, and unnecessary repetitions are definite "Warning, Will Robinson" Signs that this may not be a good story to publish. These are also things that you can get rid of with a good line by line edit, if you're careful, but their very presence is a turn off.
We also ask ourselves questions about the story itself. Does the story grip us right from the first sentence? Does it introduce us to conflict straight away? Do I feel an immediate connection to this viewpoint character and their struggle? Does it sustain the conflict all the way through? Is the ending satisfying?
These are things only a serious and seasoned writer would know to check for and insure are in place before submitting a piece of work.
Sometimes though, being a first reader isn't that cut and dry. Sometimes, it's difficult because the selection of material you're given to read can be so exquisite that you have no choice but to become painstakingly scrupulous.
In the few times I've done this job thus far, the stories I've been given to read have all--with one or two exceptions--been well-written, and the stories the writers wrote were very clever. Thus, I had to become extremely persnickety about what I turned over to my editor.
For example (and I'll keep this vague,) there was one story I turned down about six months ago. It was a well written story, with a clever premise, and the writer wrote it in a wonderfully inventive way. Had I not needed to become persnickety, I would've allow it to go through. But I had no choice. Eventually, I turned it down on the basis that the story in question was written in such a way that it became too unrealistic, breaking the verisimilitude of the story, despite all its other virtues.
It sucked to turn it down, but when you're a First Reader, that's part of your job. You have to narrow the field of possibility.
Having played for both teams (submitter and reviewer), the one thing I can tell you that will help to better your chances of getting published is this: Improve Your Craft.
As I said before, First Readers don't only take into account writing skill. They also take in personal taste. There's nothing you, as a writer submitting work, can do about that.
The only thing you can control is your skills as a writer. And the only way to improve those skills is to A) write as much as you can and B) have someone you trust, who has a good critical acumen, look it over and give you notes. Better yet, do that second one with multiple people at a workshop. Because, every so often, a story well told--with sharp craftsmanship--will trump any minor qualms a First Reader has with the genre or the story itself.
Improve. Improve. Improve.
Write. Write. Write.
The more you do it, and consciously try to improve, the better you'll get.
I'm in the same boat as you guys. When I was a high school kid, writing his first, god-awful novel--which I had the audacity to send out to agents--I got nothing but rejections. Even when I was writing through college, submitting terrible little short stories to classy literary magazines, like The New Yorker (because that's how arrogant I was), I still got nothing but rejections. And for good reason: I sucked at writing fiction, and I didn't know how to get better.
Now, as a workshop alum, I have a far better critical acumen than I did before. This has both improve my writing for the better and made it more difficult to just spin out a first draft. When I see a problem, my first instinct has become to go fix it before proceeding (if I did, I might never move forward, so I have to resist the urge and plow on).
One of the ways I've elected to sharpen and better this critical skill set has been to become, what's known as, a "First Reader" for a Literary Magazine.
The magazine I work for is called James Gunn's Ad Astra. It's a small SF magazine published through the University of Kansas - Lawrence, the same place that hosts the Gunn Center for the Study of Science Fiction (CSSF). It was there, last June, that I attended their annual CSSF Short Fiction Writing Workshop (submissions for which open up tomorrow, FYI).
It was also there that I made the acquaintance of Ad Astra's editor-in-chief, Jean Asselin. Evidently, I managed to make some kind of impression on him--likely from my critiques rather than from my work (I wrote mostly fantasy, of which he is not a fan)--because towards the end of my time at the workshop, he offered me the job of working as a First Reader for the magazine.
I've used that phrase twice thus far, and I haven't explained exactly what it means. (Allow me to fix that.)
A First Reader is exactly what it sounds like. Our (there are loads of us) editors give us a selection of a given period's slush submissions, and we read through them to determine which ones get through to the next round of acceptances and, unfortunately, which ones get rejected straight away.
I should also explain that, when it comes to editing and submissions at magazines, there's a hierarchy. (Where isn't there one?)
At the very top of our pyramid is Jean, editor-in-chief. He's the one who has the final most say on what gets published from any given period. But, he only receives the best of the best to take his pick from.
Below him are the "Section Editors". In addition to Fiction, AA also publishes nonfiction and poetry, so there editors for each of those fields as well. Given the disparity in submissions from one department to another, we First Readers mainly read the fiction slush pile, and thus the stories we think are the best, we then turn into our fiction editor.
Thus, in order to get published, your story has to bare up to three rounds of critical review. A first reader must think it's good (both on a story level and technical level). A Section Editor has to like it enough to then pass it onto the Editor-in-Chief, and then the Editor-in-Chief has to like it too and have space for it. It's a real bottle neck, but with limited space for publishing and limited funds for paying those who do get published, there has to be one by necessity. It's the publishing equivalent of natural selection.
Thus, the Hierarchy goes:
1. Editor-in-Chief
2. Section Editor
3. First Reader
If you need an analogy to help remember it, think of it this way (those of you who've worked retail will understand):
The Editor-in-Chief is the Store Owner.
The Section Editor is the Store/Departmental Manager.
The First Reader is the peon who works the store floor.
(I should also mention that First Readers don't actually get paid to do what we do. That's why we're at the bottom of the pyramid).
Now, you may be asking questions. What exactly is a First Reader looking for? What does it take to get passed up that hierarchy to even have a chance to get published?
It's really a combination of two things.
One--and I hate to say it, but it's true--is personal taste. All First Readers are readers above everything else, and therefore, we have things we like and don't like. Your theoretical story could be written in the most gorgeous, envy-inducing style but if it doesn't grip us, we'll pass on it. You might think that isn't fair, but take a moment to think about it. We represent a small scale version of our magazine's readership; if we don't like your story, there's a good chance our readers won't either.
The second, however, evens the playing field, and that's pure writing competence. There are certain signs we First Readers look for to tell whether or not a story is worth publishing, and they're all craft elements. Loose, clunky, or purple prose, numerous typos, and unnecessary repetitions are definite "Warning, Will Robinson" Signs that this may not be a good story to publish. These are also things that you can get rid of with a good line by line edit, if you're careful, but their very presence is a turn off.
We also ask ourselves questions about the story itself. Does the story grip us right from the first sentence? Does it introduce us to conflict straight away? Do I feel an immediate connection to this viewpoint character and their struggle? Does it sustain the conflict all the way through? Is the ending satisfying?
These are things only a serious and seasoned writer would know to check for and insure are in place before submitting a piece of work.
Sometimes though, being a first reader isn't that cut and dry. Sometimes, it's difficult because the selection of material you're given to read can be so exquisite that you have no choice but to become painstakingly scrupulous.
In the few times I've done this job thus far, the stories I've been given to read have all--with one or two exceptions--been well-written, and the stories the writers wrote were very clever. Thus, I had to become extremely persnickety about what I turned over to my editor.
For example (and I'll keep this vague,) there was one story I turned down about six months ago. It was a well written story, with a clever premise, and the writer wrote it in a wonderfully inventive way. Had I not needed to become persnickety, I would've allow it to go through. But I had no choice. Eventually, I turned it down on the basis that the story in question was written in such a way that it became too unrealistic, breaking the verisimilitude of the story, despite all its other virtues.
It sucked to turn it down, but when you're a First Reader, that's part of your job. You have to narrow the field of possibility.
Having played for both teams (submitter and reviewer), the one thing I can tell you that will help to better your chances of getting published is this: Improve Your Craft.
As I said before, First Readers don't only take into account writing skill. They also take in personal taste. There's nothing you, as a writer submitting work, can do about that.
The only thing you can control is your skills as a writer. And the only way to improve those skills is to A) write as much as you can and B) have someone you trust, who has a good critical acumen, look it over and give you notes. Better yet, do that second one with multiple people at a workshop. Because, every so often, a story well told--with sharp craftsmanship--will trump any minor qualms a First Reader has with the genre or the story itself.
Improve. Improve. Improve.
Write. Write. Write.
The more you do it, and consciously try to improve, the better you'll get.
Comments