Diabolical Plots is open for submissions!
See the guidelines for more details.
Science Fiction, fantasy, speculative horror. 8 cents/word, 2 stories/writer, up to 3500 words, open through end of July.
Diabolical Plots is open for submissions!
See the guidelines for more details.
Science Fiction, fantasy, speculative horror. 8 cents/word, 2 stories/writer, up to 3500 words, open through end of July.
written by David Steffen
There’s been a lot of work going on behind the scenes at the Submission Grinder site in preparation for a big site upgrade.
ETA: The upgraded version is now on the main site. See the rest of this article for a list of some new features.
What you’re seeing is an overhaul of the site that’s been in the works for quite some time now. The new site includes all the features you’re familiar with, plus some exciting new ones. I’ve written this article to show off some of the new changes. As always, the site is free to use whether you register an account or not. I encourage you to go check out the new site for yourself, or for the first time if you’re a newcomer to the site.
Now that this big batch of features is rolled out, it should be much easier for me to roll out individual features as they are ready to launch. I have a lot of ideas that I think you’re all going to love; it’s just a matter of prioritizing them and finishing them one by one.
First, I want to thank a few people who have contributed to this new development.
Okay, now that all the sappy stuff is out of the way, let’s get to the new features! These are listed in approximate order of how excited I am about the feature, with the most exciting features first. (YMMV so of course it’s possible that you’re more excited about the last ones on the list, so this is far from a scientific sorting method)
This is a feature I’ve been so eager to share with more people because it shares an incredible amount of information in a very compact space.
The graph is a bar chart. The X axis is time, covering dates between one year ago and today. The height of the bars is the number of recorded submissions sent to that market on that day. Bars representing submissions that have met different ends are stacked on top of each other–purple bars are pending response, red bars are rejections, green bars are acceptances. If you are logged in and you have a pending response to that market, your submission is shown as a black dot.
For a few examples (not necessarily all up-to-date graphs mind you):
You can see, in the Apex Magazine graph, that they were closed for submissions from about June through December, that they got slammed with submissions when they re-opened. On the far right side you can see what their current slushpile looks like (the purple portion of the graph), and the trail of small purple bars to the left of it are probably stories that have been approved by slushreaders and passed up to the editor and so are waiting a longer period of time outside the main slushpile. (The black dot there is my own submission that was held at the time I took this snapshot)
You can see in the Analog graph that, well, they don’t really stay on top of their slushpile. At the time this snapshot was taken in March no one who submitted more recently than the beginning of October has heard anything, and most people who submitted since the beginning of September has heard anything. Long waits here don’t mean much.
You can see in the Cast of Wonders graph that they closed for submissions from about September through December. You can also see that the volume of submissions has surged upward after they reopened. Not coincidentally, Cast of Wonders increased their payment rates from a flat 5GBP to a professional rate of 6 cents/word when they reopened (after a change in ownership as they were purchased by Escape Artists, Inc) which starts the timer for them to become a SFWA-qualifying market. This has clearly made submitting to Cast of Wonders more appealing to writers. You can also discern the shape of the slushpile and the hold pile pretty clearly here.
You can see in the Clarkesworld graph that they receive a lot of submissions all the time. They haven’t closed within the last year. And they are on top of their slushpile in an incredible fashion (look at how little purple there is!). If you want a quick response (maybe to get one last submission before you can send that story to something else before deadline), this graph tells you that Clarkesworld is a great place to submit. The statistics would’ve told you that before, of course, but the statistics are the summary of a year’s worth of responses, while this graph tells you what their slushpile looks like right now.
In the writers of the future graph, you can guess, without knowing anything else, that they have a quarterly deadline, and that lots of writers submit at the last minute. You can also guess the reason why because they can take a while to respond, and so why not wait until the deadline?
There are probably other things to be gleaned from these graphs, but these are the kinds of things that I’ve been very excited to see in these graphs.
The Recent Activity list on the front page of the site looks different than you’re used to. You’re used to seeing a list of individual responses grouped first by day and then by alphabetical order of market name. One long-term frustration with that layout was that when an alphabetically privileged market, like Asimov’s, has a big push of rejections, then suddenly the one market would occupy most or all of that list.
Well, no longer! Now a market only has one line per day to summarize all of its rejections. And the page still shows the same number of lines, so you will often see more total information on that list than before these changes. Acceptances still always get their own line, since those are of special interest, and so if you have chosen to show your name for acceptances you will still see it on the front page. If you ever want to know the more detailed list you can always click the “details” icon to click through to that market page’s recent activity which lists all items from the last 30 days without summarizing.
On the previous version of the site, the Advanced Search page has had some limited memory of your choices, but I’ve never been entirely satisfied with the method of its operation. In the past it would remember the settings of a few of your choices in the exclusion section by using a cookie. But, this would not persist from device to device, it would only affect a select few parameters, and it would remember any change you made even if you didn’t want it to.
So, the new Advanced Search page has a choice to remember these settings. You pick what values you want saved, you check the box for “remember these settings” and then every time you load the page in the future it will have those same values populated. So, for instance, you can choose whether you want to see fee-based markets in the results, and you could set your minimum pay rate to Pro.
One occasional frustration with the market graphs on the previous version of the site was that if there had been a very long response reported the Turnaround Time graph scale would be very very long and it would be hard to make out much detail in the rest of the graph.
All three graphs are now zoomable, so you can zoom in on particular area of interest, see what specific days were associated with certain values, and etc, so this shouldn’t be a frustration anymore.
The Advanced Search Results and other market results pages now show the average response days for easy comparison of responsiveness.
The Advanced Search results and some other pages now can be sorted by in ascending or descending order based on several of the column headings (including the new average response days column).
It was always perhaps a little bit odd that there was no way to delete a piece once you’d made it. Generally the easiest way to work around this had been to just rename the piece the next time you finish a story and use the record for that new piece going forward.
But now you can delete the piece, so you don’t need that option.
Why didn’t the site have alphabetical market listings before? I… really don’t remember. I guess people have usually either knownwhat the exact name of a market was already, or they were searching by attribute rather than name. So no one’s really complained about the lack. Anyway, whether it gets much use or not, it’s available. And it might come in handy if, for instance, you don’t remember how to spell Giganotosaurus.
On the previous version of the site the Manage Pieces page let you filter your list of pieces by checking the “Exclude Accepted” box so you’d only see unsold stories. A new box has been added to “Exclude Retired” (which are simply any pieces that you have marked as retired so they don’t show up in your dropdown list of pieces).
The Submission Grinder site now has a favicon in the form of the site logo. This is what shows up on shortcuts or browser tabs. Might come in handy for spotting at a glance which tabs were Grinder tabs.
written by David Steffen
Since the start of 2016 I have been working hard on completing some major upgrades to the Submission Grinder site.
For those of you who may not be familiar with it, the Submission Grinder is a web tool for writers to find markets for their fiction: market listings, a search engine to find markets that fit your criteria, a submission tracker, and anonymized submission statistics to get an idea of what kind of response time can be expected from a particular market.
As part of the development work, in January the Grinder began sending out weekly Submission Grinder newsletters to subscribers which contained a list of recently added markets with links to the Grinder listing for each of those markets. The newsletter also includes updates on Submission Grinder feature development, and fundraising updates.
Starting next week, the newsletter is expanding to also include lists of markets that have recently opened or recently closed, making it easy to keep track of changes in market status, all delivered right to your inbox.
And, best of all, each of these lists is filtered based on user preferences for genre and pay rate, so you only hear about the kinds of markets you have personal interest in.
To sign up for the newsletter you don’t have to be a registered Grinder user, or even have experience with the site’s features. All you need to is sign up here and enter your preferences for filtering.
There is also a separate newsletter to talk about Diabolical Plots’s publishing projects, which you can sign up for here.
written by David Steffen
Today marks the official release ebook and audiobook versions of the Long List Anthology, a collection of stories published in 2014 from the Hugo Award nomination list. (The print version was released not too long ago).
See the Books page for a link to all of the different vendors for the different formats.
In case this is the first you’re hearing about this, I ran the Kickstarter to fund this anthology in October, which you can see here.
I hope you enjoy the stories in this book as much as I have. Share links! Leave reviews!
The Hugo Award is one of the most prestigious speculative fiction literary awards. Every year, supporting members of WorldCon nominate their favorite stories first published during the previous year to determine the top five in each category for the final Hugo Award ballot. Between the announcement of the ballot and the Hugo Award ceremony at WorldCon, these works often become the center of much attention (and contention) across fandom.
But there are more stories loved by the Hugo voters, stories on the longer nomination list that WSFS publishes after the Hugo Award ceremony at WorldCon. The Long List Anthology collects 21 tales from that nomination list, totaling almost 500 pages of fiction by writers from all corners of the world.
Within these pages you will find a mix of science fiction and fantasy, the dramatic and the lighthearted, from near future android stories to steampunk heists, too-plausible dystopias to contemporary vampire stories.
There is something here for everyone.
The cover art is by the Hugo-Award winning artist Galen Dara, the cover layout by Pat R. Steiner, and the interior layout by Polgarus Studios. Audiobook production by Skyboat Media.
written by David Steffen
It occurs to me 20 days into a 26 day Kickstarter campaign for the Long List anthology that I have not actually mentioned the Kickstarter campaign on my own website. It has been a crazy 20 days and so much has been happening this particular thing has been postponed while I was working on other factors related to the campaign. Well, better late than never, and with 6 days left in the campaign there is still some time for those who are interested to back the project to get their rewards and to help push toward the couple of remaining stretch goals.
You can read more detailed information on the Kickstarter page, but I’ll give a brief rundown here.
Every year the Hugo Awards celebrate short stories (and other content) related to SF fandom as nominated and voted by supporters of WorldCon. The works on the ballot receive a great deal of attention as they are distributed in a packet to voters and the voters discuss them. Every year after the awards are given out, the Hugo administrators publish a longer list of nominated works which receive much less attention though they are also works that were greatly loved by the voting fanbase. The purpose of the Long List anthology is to publish as many of the works from that longer list as possible.
The campaign’s base goal was relatively modest–only covering the purchase of nonexclusive reprint rights for the stories in the short story category, with stretch goals to add novelettes and novellas. The campaign got off to big start with the base goal being reached just 2 days into the campaign, and the stretch goals being reached only a few days later. Since the stretch goals were reached so early in the campaign I got to work making ever larger and ever more exciting stretch goals. This added up to three stretch goals to produce an expand an audiobook of those stories for which audio rights could be acquired, produced by Skyboat Media who you may know as the folks who produce the excellent award-winning Lightspeed Magazine podcast. The first of those goals has been reached, so there will be an audiobook which will contain 8-9 of the short stories. There are two stretch goals remaining to add novelettes and novellas to the production. I am very excited to have the opportunity to work with Skyboat Media–they have produced many of my favorite podcast fiction recordings and I am very excited to hear their productions.
The following is the list of the table of contents of stories that will be part of the anthology.
Note that there will be 3 formats of the anthology:
1. Ebook: Will contain all of the stories (180,000 words of short fiction).
2. Print book: Will contain all of the short stories and all of the novelettes. May contain novellas depending on printing constraints. (around 140,000 words for short stories and novelettes)
3. Audiobook: Will contain at least 8-9 of the short stories (close to 40,000 words, which I think comes out to perhaps 4 hours of produced audio?), and if higher stretch goals are reached may contain novelettes and novellas which will add more content.
The following is the full list of stories:
Short Stories
Novelettes
Novellas
There are a variety of backer rewards left for those who might be interested, listed briefly here.
written by David Steffen
Diabolical Plots opened for fiction submissions for the month of July, one story per writer for the submission window. During that month 425 valid submissions arrived in the slushpile. 59 stories were held for a second look. 13 stories were purchased. Both rounds of the process were judged entirely by me, and author names were hidden from me until the final decisions had been made, so the stories had to stand for themselves. Here are the story titles and authors for that year of purchases. I am very excited to bring these stories to readers. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did!
March 2016
“One’s Company” by Davian Aw
April 2016
“The Blood Tree War” by Daniel Ausema
May 2016
“Further Arguments in Support of Yudah Cohen’s Proposal to Bluma Zilberman” by Rebecca Fraimow
June 2016
“The Weight of Kanzashi” by Joshua Gage
July 2016
“Future Fragments, Six Seconds Long” by Alex Shvartsman
August 2016
“Sustaining Memory” by Coral Moore
September 2016
“Do Not Question the University” by PC Keeler
October 2016
“October’s Wedding of the Month” by Emma McDonald
November 2016
“The Banshee Behind Beamon’s Bakery” by Khaalidah Muhammad-Ali
December 2016
“The Schismatic Element Aboard Continental Drift” by Lee Budar-Danoff
January 2017
“Curl Up and Dye” by Tina Gower
February 2017
“The Avatar In Us All” by J.D. Carelli
March 2017
“Bloody Therapy” by Suzan Palumbo
Today is the first day for the Kickstarter of the Long List anthology. The purpose of the Long List anthology is to celebrate more of the short fiction chosen by the Hugo voters. This will be done by soliciting the short fiction works on the Hugo “long list” that the Hugo administration publish every year after giving the award. See the Kickstarter for more details
Thank you!
NOTE: The original post suggested the title “Ones to Watch” but someone rightly pointed out this implied an anthology of up-and-coming authors just starting to get noticed, which will probably be untrue more often than not. So, “Long List” is the working title at this point instead.
For anyone who read the previous plan proposing the Mulligan Awards, this announcement is to announce that there will be no Mulligan Awards, and to announce a new plan that I hope will accomplish the same goals I had in mind, but in a way that better fits my goals.
WHAT IS CHANGING?
There will be no Mulligan Award
There will be no attempt to use the numbers to extrapolate what would’ve been on the Hugo ballot without the voting slates.
There will still be a Kickstarter.
The Kickstarter will support a reprint SF/F anthology tentatively titled “Long List”.
The contents of the anthology will be those stories on the longer Hugo nomination stats list that they publish at WorldCon for the appropriate category, as long as:
The baseline goal of the Kickstarter will include the short story category. There will be stretch goals that will include the novelette and novella categories.
The anthology will be published in ebook formats.
I will consider doing this in future years as well, regardless of whether that year has a controversy or not. No matter what makes the ballot or how it makes the ballot, there are other stories that came very close–with the nomination numbers we will know which ones they are, and I see no reason why this couldn’t be an annual production.
WHY IS IT CHANGING?
For a variety of reasons. But first and foremost, it’s a matter of tone.
There has been a lot of anger surrounding this Hugo season from a variety of people with a variety of viewpoints. I am not going to examine that anger here–the SF corners of the Internet are full of that examination, and it’s all out there for you to read. What frustrates me most about this award season is the loss of excitement that usually surrounds it, of taking the time and space to share and discuss stories, to celebrate this genre that we all love so much, even though different people love different kinds of stories and different aspects. To me, the Hugos at their best are a recommended reading list vetted by a couple thousand fans that like all kinds of different things. I like them best when they’re a hodgepodge–some stuff perfectly suited to my reading, others that I don’t like or don’t understand but which are interesting as a study of understanding other people’s viewpoints and perspectives.
The reason I suggested the Mulligan Awards in the first place was because I wanted to offer a place where people could be excited about this award season again, where it wouldn’t just be anger from one end of the calendar to another. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that even though I wanted it to be a way to add positivity and excitement to the award season, the more I realized that it was inseparable from the anger because its basis was blame. And that it could make the experience of people already having a tough time even tougher. For example, if a novelist found out that she had almost made the ballot this year, that would be hard–almost making something is hard no matter the circumstances. If she then got a communication from someone she’d never heard of, offering her an award for not quite making the ballot? Well, no matter what the intent of the award, that might just hurt all the more.
Which brought me back to pondering what I really wanted to do with this project to begin with and how I could meet those goals in the most positive way. The idea of the award was exciting to me, but more exciting was that those works that didn’t quite make the ballot would get some attention, and maybe fans out there would find new authors and new publications that get them all the more excited for short fiction. And I decided that this kind of anthology would be better if I didn’t make any judgment calls–no consideration of whether something was on a slate, or whether it was recommended by who or why. The anthology is going to be a mixed bag, and I like that idea.
NOTE: This post is outdated. Please visit this other article to find out about the updated plan. Other than this introductory note, I leave this post and its comments unchanged so that you can read about the idea if you like.
WHAT ARE THE MULLIGAN AWARDS?
The Mulligan Awards are a response to the joke that is this year’s Hugo ballot. This is for the people who want to compare and contrast great stories and publications that were chosen by the two thousand people who registered and nominated, rather than the opinion of just two or three.
So there will be a final ballot which is based on what non-voting-bloc Hugo voters nominated, an opportunity to vote and, depending on what can be arranged with the parties of interest and the level of interest from fandom, there may be trophies, or a reprint ebook anthology of those on the final ballot who are interested in participating.
WHY ARE THE MULLIGAN AWARDS?
There are a lot of people very upset about how the Hugo ballot turned out this year. No mystery why, since the final ballot is conspicuously off-kilter, matching the Sad Puppies voting bloc slate almost exactly with a bit of Rabid Puppies mixed in. The Hugo rules are set up so that anyone with the price of entry can vote, and there’s nothing to prevent a hivemind like the Correia-Torgersen-Vox collective from forcing whatever they want onto the ballot to take a stance on somethingsomething and prove the point about mumblemumble while only actually accomplishing in transforming the award from something that boils down interests of a bunch of interesting subsets of fandom into a ballot that only the collective itself thinks is worthy.
I will point out that the collective has not broken any rules, but they have made the ballot very dull because it only represents the opinion of three people, rather than the opinion of two thousand.
The biggest loss is the loss of discussion about new and interesting stories that rise out of the woodwork from a group voting in an uncoordinate fashion, which is what I look forward to the Hugos every year for. So the Mulligans are an attempt to salvage something worthwhile from the Hugo year, and give some recognition to authors who deserve it.
HOW DO I NOMINATE FOR THE MULLIGANS?
You already have or haven’t. The nominations will be based on Hugo nomination numbers rather than being a completely separate procedure. Each year the Hugo committee publishes a list of the top 15 nominees with voting counts for each one. The Mulligan nominations start with the Hugo nomination list, but estimates what the top 5 would be in the absence of the voting bloc.
How will it do this? Well, since the bloc has succeeded so thoroughly in sweeping the ballot, this implies that the members of the group followed their leader’s orders and voted slavishly for everything suggested. This should make them easier to spot in the nomination numbers because there will be some things from the voting bloc’s slate that didn’t get votes from anyone else, or almost no one else. That lowest number will give an estimate of how many actually followed orders–the lowest rather than the highest because some of the voting bloc’s choices may have been popular in their own right, and perhaps could have made it on the Hugo ballot without collusion. Then, by subtracting the estimated bloc count from all of the nominees that came from the bloc’s slate, that will be a rough estimate of what the ballot would look like without the bloc’s effects.
Note that this doesn’t automatically knock all stories from the voting bloc off the ballot–if they were legitimately popular in the overall vote, then they could be on the Mulligan ballot too.
These numbers aren’t released until after WorldCon, so the Mulligan final ballot can’t be released until September.
HOW DO I VOTE FOR THE MULLIGANS?
The details for this are still being determined and will be advertised at a later date. Ideally, if there’s some way that eligibility for actual Hugo voting can be verified by those who choose to vote, that would be the best way to keep the voting group similar–but I’m not sure if that will be possible. There will definitely be a way to vote, and it will be based on a rank-order instant-runoff system with “No Award” as an option–and counting will generally work like the published Hugo rules. Except that there will be no 5% minimum for a nominee to be listed.
ARE THE MULLIGANS AFFILIATED WITH THE HUGOS?
No. Not even slightly.
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT TROPHIES? AND REPRINT ANTHOLOGY?
At the very least I will post a ballot and provide some way to vote. This I can set up for limited cost.
If there is enough interest, I might run a Kickstarter for the Mulligans–if enough of the Mulligan nominees are interested, a reprint ebook anthology paid at 1 cent per word or more. Whether I set up the Kickstarter will depend somewhat on how much interest people express, so if you’d be willing to kick in a few bucks to get a copy, let me know.
BUT MY VOTE IS ONE THAT’S GETTING SUBTRACTED! MY VOICE COUNTS!
If you are a member of the collective, then you can console yourself with the Hugo Awards.
WILL THIS RUN EVERY YEAR?
I sincerely hope it won’t need to. But if a bloc dominates again, I’ll consider it.
written by David Steffen
I have twelve short story contracts in hand, signed by the authors of twelve stories. That means that I can announce the lineup of stories for Diabolical Plots first year of publishing fiction. All of these were chosen with the author names hidden so all of them made it on the merit of the story, regardless of how well the author is known or their publishing histroies.
March: “Taste the Whip” by Andy Dudak
April: “Virtual Blues” by Lee Budar-Danoff
May: “In Memoriam” by Rachel Reddick
June: “The Princess in the Basement” by Hope Erica Schultz
July: “Not a Bird” by H.E. Roulo
August: “The Superhero Registry” by Adam Gaylord
September: “A Room for Lost Things” by Chloe N. Clark
October: “The Grave Can Wait” by Thomas Berubeg
November: “Giraffe Cyborg Cleans House!” by Matthew Sanborn Smith
December: “St. Roomba’s Gospel” by Rachael K. Jones
January: “The Osteomancer’s Husband” by Henry Szabranski
February: “May Dreams Shelter Us” by Kate O’Connor