For Love Or Money?

[coalescent]

A couple of weeks ago, for the second time ever, I got paid for a review. It felt, and still feels, a bit weird.

In part it feels weird because it doesn't seem justified. If sf reviewing were a salaried profession, there are a large number of people I'd put in the queue to be employed before myself. This is, clearly, not false modesty; there are a lot of good reviewers in this field, and to a fairly large extent I often write about books because other people aren't. If I could get anyone I wanted to write about anything I wanted, I doubt I'd personally write very much. (Convenient that I'm a reviews editor, you might say.)

In part it feels weird because, well, I'm just not used to it. This is not an enterprise with a large target audience. Shallow shiny commercial reviews are a possible exception, but I don't have much interest in either writing or reading those. So I've never expected to be paid for anything I write, and (review copies aside) the majority of places I've written reviews for--Foundation, Interzone, Vector, etc--don't pay. Even somewhere like The New York Review of Science Fiction only pays $10 a review.

I can't imagine not wanting to write for any of those places because of their pay rates or lack thereof. NYRSF is arguably the most respected venue for reviews in sf at the moment; getting a review in there means something. It's a similar story with the other three, although other factors come into play, as well. For some of the above, I write reviews because I want to support them, and I think I can do a decent job. For some of them, the editorial guidance they offer is crucial: I want feedback on my reviews; I want to get better. (There are also venues I don't desperately want to write for, despite the fact that they pay, for the converse reasons.) And then there are the reviews I write, as mentioned, just because other people haven't done so. That's the impetus behind blogging, after all, wanting to be part of the discussion.

At this point we come to Strange Horizons. Before last autumn's relaunch, the Strange Horizons reviews department bought and published one in-depth review a week. Since the relaunch, we've been publishing four reviews a week, and paying for as many as we can. We can't afford to pay for them all. The theoretical solution has been to have a cutoff point, with reviews of 500--750 words unpaid, and longer reviews paid. In practice, many people have been generous, and donated longer reviews.

It is, obviously, not an ideal situation. I try to rotate, but there are plenty of people I haven't been able to pay yet. The immediate alternatives are to pay an (even) smaller amount, but pay for every review, or to publish less reviews. Neither of those appeal to me, the first because it would be an empty gesture, and the second because for the reviews department to be what I want it to be, we need to be publishing more than four reviews a month. What I want it to be, of course, is a venue of the type I was discussing above: a place people want to support, a place people receive whuffie for being published in, and a place where people know their reviews will be well-edited. The long-term theory behind Strange Horizons, not just the reviews department, is surely to believe that it can develop a virtuous circle: that putting out good content will increase the audience, which will increase income during fund drives, which will enable the magazine to pay more for more things.

There are various failure points in this plan. An obvious one is if the editorial control sucks, but (equally obviously) I prefer to believe that the editorial control (in all departments) is actually pretty good. Another failure point, though, is that if it turns out that most people who write reviews aren't like me--and guess what? That one might be true. For starters, there are plenty of reviewers who are also writers, who review partly to earn a little bit of extra money, and who therefore won't want to review for Strange Horizons. This is not unreasonable. It would perhaps be possible to dismiss such people as mercenaries who don't really care about reviewing for itself, but given the large number of author-critics that sf has generated and continues to generate, such a reaction would more than likely be unfair.

So there we are: money makes things complicated. Big revelation. I suppose that if I were to really practise what I preach, I would donate anything I earn from reviewing to Strange Horizons, but when I can spend it on (say) this evening's theatre trip instead, I'm not quite that altruistic. It may feel a bit weird but, like everyone else, I'd prefer to be paid than not.

Comments

[peake.livejournal.com]

I have in my time been paid for a few of my reviews. I had about a half-dozen in the TLS before they decided on a policy that only published authors were qualified to review books (which I still think is a ridiculous decision - with a very few exceptions novelists are usually the worst reviewers of fiction). I had a few in Literary Review, and for a glorious period I got a regular gig reviewing for The Fiction Magazine before it folded. Oh and every few months I receive a mysterious dollar cheque from NYRSF and usually find myself struggling to remember what I reviewed in the period.

The point is that the single biggest payment I ever got for a review was about £80 from the TLS. The only way you are going to make a significant amount of money from reviewing is if you get onto a national newspaper, or if get through a phenomenal number of books day in day out. I've not managed either.

You can probably count on the fingers of one hand the people who make a living primarily from reviewing. And anyone who is in it for the money is deluded. You review for the books, for the chance to write about books, for the kudos, and any cash that comes along is a nice little extra but it is not and cannot be the main reason.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Not really related but I was reading Alastair Campbell's review of Unspeak on Saturday and it reminded me of some of the conversation the other week about what a review is meant to be and whether there is more than one type of review. It is a presonal, partial review filtered very much through the reviewers life and I think there is a place for it.

PS: I've just realised there are dozens of comments I've made here which, taken out of context, could be put on the cover of the next edition as a positive endorsement. Take the first paragraph alone - " ... endlessly fascinating ... serious piece of work ... this guy has done his homework." It would be a gross case of Unspeak to do that. In any event, given the readers he is clearly appealing to, he'd be better off with "Crap from start to finish - Alastair Campbell." But he probably knows that.

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

I've only ever been paid for one review -- £5, flat fee, from the long-defunct Odyssey -- and it certainly wasn't enough to make any difference to my decision to review or not! (Ditto fiction: I have technically 'sold' a story, though payment -- $5 -- won't be forthcoming 'til the magazine is published, but it's such a token amount that it's irrelevant.) I'd much rather review for free in a respected forum, rewarded by kudos and feedback. The best payment I've had for anything I've written involves dialogue.

Er, not that I wouldn't like to be paid for a long review!

[peake.livejournal.com]

I got into Milford at first on the strength of a non-sf story in a 'literary journal' for which I received the princely sum of £2. It still counted as a professional sale. My two most recent stories appeared in professionally published anthologies for which payment is a share of royalties - so far that amounts to not one single penny.

I'm tempted to update Dr Jonson and say that nowadays only a fool expects to make money from writing.

not that I wouldn't like to be paid for a long review!

I'm with you on this. A lot of reviews, especially the long ones, take a lot of time and work and by god we deserve to be paid for them.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that many people would be making a living from reviewing. But I do think that there is a moderately sized group of people for whom reviewing is a useful source of additional income. These would be people who, perhaps, are freelancers, and write what they can for where they can. (I mean, Sci Fi Weekly pays $100 a review, IIRC--write for them a couple times a month, and that's a chunk of your rent paid.) And there are people in that group I would like to get to write reviews for me, but it's not going to happen, because I can't pay them much or very often.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Interesting review. Weird formatting glitch, though.

[ex-susumu64.livejournal.com]

I'm not totally certain who I like less out of Alistair Campbell and Steven Poole, but watching one take down the other was fantastic.

I suppose this is not the time to mention the 1,000+ word, 15p a word video games reviews I used to regularly write?

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

I do find the qualification for Milford an odd one. Technically, I suppose, my Professional Sale qualifies me: but it has nothing to do with SF, to the point where I'd be embarrassed to let any SF readers (potential Serious audience) see it! It seems to me that an increasing number of reputable SF markets don't pay -- to the extent that one could be nominated for, and even win, an award on the strength of publication in a small-press magazine, but still be ineligible for Milford.

[peake.livejournal.com]

I haven't been to Milford for years so I've no idea what their qualifications are today, but in the early 80s they were really struggling to get the numbers. The first year I attended it was just a weekend because there weren't enough people to justify staying any longer. So I guess they were just glad to have anyone who showed interest.

I think the problem with sf markets is that there isn't an audience to sustain most of the publications. All the well-known magazines are struggling. So the vast majority of markets for short fiction are either short-lived publications, small presses or web sites, all operating on a shoestring, and therefore able to pay only the lowest rates if they can pay anything at all.

And since that is the case for fiction, imagine how much worse it is for non-fiction.

[peake.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about making a living, for the vast majority of professional reviewers that isn't even an issue. But actually getting any decent return for the work of reading and constructing a review is rare. Any cash is welcome, but if you imagine anyone outside a very restricted circle is getting more than maybe $100 a month you are mistaken, and that much would make much of a dent in my expenses, for instance (I spend several times that much every month just on travel).

But what you're talking about is a different issue. I suspect a lot of them would be happy to review for you if they had the chance, but the obstacle is not so much the money as the time. If they are dependent on writing for a reasonable portion of their income, then it is simply that they cannot afford the time necessary to read and review a book on something that isn't going to contribute to that income.

[rosefox]

For starters, there are plenty of reviewers who are also writers, who review partly to earn a little bit of extra money, and who therefore won't want to review for Strange Horizons.

I suppose one would expect me to fall into that category, given how much work I do for PW (not least because the payscale is pretty good, and at my reading and writing speed, works out to about $10/hr). But as I mentioned in my last email to you, I'm more than happy to volunteer my time for SH; right now the extra line on my resume matters a lot more to me than another few dollars in the bank. The hope, of course, is that the spiffed-up resume will give me access to better jobs and thus a net financial gain.

And let's not forget the warm fuzzy glow of doing good work for a good publication. *) I volunteer for a few other publications--I just signed up with BookFetish and Virtual Tales, and I do a weekly column for nonsensenyc--and it really is a great feeling.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Point taken. Although it's really a chicken-and-egg situation: if I could pay more, more people could justify the time.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

!

Why did you stop?

[ex-susumu64.livejournal.com]

All the magazines I wrote for closed.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Either you're an extremely quick reader, or that really is good money. Or both, of course.

And yes, there's no one-size-fits-all characterisation in this situation, really; everyone's going to have a different balance for what they want to put into, and get out of, reviewing.

I don't want anyone to think I'm complaining about the people who aren't writing for me, either. I think I've got a brilliant pool of reviewers; I'm happy. Just, you know, a bit frustrated as well. :)

[rosefox]

I think it's both. It helps that they pay more for books over 500 pages. *) And I totally understand your frustration. Even as I make commitments to volunteer work--and I am very serious about those commitments--I think wistfully of maybe someday getting paid for just about everything I write and edit.

[kniedzw.livejournal.com]

From the Articles perspective, I totally understand your position. I really and sincerely wish I had more money to pay for articles. If I did, I'd probably be pushing for two pieces per week, if possible, if only to ramp up the virtuous cycle you referred to before.

This was really driven home with the Beatty piece that we just ran. Articles simply didn't have money to pay for the reprint rights, and the poets graciously allowed us to run them gratis. If I had my druthers, we'd be giving them something approximately on par with the poetry department (they are Rhysling-winning pieces, after all, and poets really don't get paid enough), but I don't and we can't.

That said, I am quite proud of the editorial staff we have at Strange Horizons. They're all dedicated and surprisingly professional, to a person.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

No doubt they went broke. :-)

[radinden]

A lot of what you've said here parallels the position re setting quiz questions, interestingly. Or maybe not that interestingly.

[ex-susumu64.livejournal.com]

Well in the sense that they didn't make enough money, yeah. But Felix Dennis or Emap plc's definition of "not enough money" is probably different to yours or mine ;)

[mattia.livejournal.com]

I review (insofar as I review at all) for the fun of it. The intellectual kicks. If I want to earn some cash, I'll copywrite, copyedit or translate something, because the pay's much better. I wouldn't say no to being paid, mind, but equally it really wouldn't affect my decision on whether to write a review in the first place, or, really (unless we're talking large sums, significantly over 50 dollars), on where to get it published.

It's all about the Whuffie, baby!

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I am intrigued. How so?