I’m paying for the critique. That is all.

Lastly, the whole payment issue is also a non starter. An established writer is going to get far more for their story than a brand new writer and I think the five cent per word standard stiffles and blocks far more than it helps.

Besides that, plenty of crap makes it into the magazines anyway. I, for one, would be happy to have Gardner making a few picks again.

I don’t see why he won’t select 6 or 10 or even 15 stories – pay beginning rates and get more people into the workshop! He didn’t say 3 was the maximum, just how much he was current planning for in his publishing schedule.

:)

I don’t see why the three slots wouldn’t be filled with three of the 100+ short stories being workshopped in the new venue. Indeed, it would be an important part of making sure that participants pay up for another round/year/whatever of workshopping. I also don’t see how the idea of standards plays into this at all. Anyone reading any magazine will surely perceive that not all content is of equal quality. So what?

In your Charity event scenario – which is an excellent analogy –

1. Support our cause – buy a date with a sexy bachelor

2. Buy a date with a sexy single bachelor! You know what can happen between 2 consenting adults – nudge nudge – poke poke – know what I mean! Support our cause.

3. Pay us money to have sex with our bachelor to support our charity

I think we are talking about Scenario 2 – since he stated Gardner has the option.

I understand how scenario 2 sounds an awful lot like scenario 3 and to many people it is no different, but it is – IMO. And I don’t see it as problematic.

I guess I am just not capable of understanding it. I’m sure I am wrong. I always am.

I never said it was a big deal. I said it was problematic. What we disagree on is whether there’s a difference between something maybe happening at an event (in this case a workshop) and explicitly stating that the potential something happening is part of what you’re paying for.

It’s kind of like your refuting my statement that there is a difference with repeated assertions that said something does indeed happen sometimes. Which was never at issue.

I don’t see much difference in your two scenarios. To me, it’s a matter of one focusing the advertising on the Charity as opposed to what could happen on the Date.

I can assure you that local law enforcement would see a distinct difference.

Either you’re willfully ignoring the actual argument, or you’re not actually capable of understanding it. Either way, it isn’t worth continuing to discuss the issue with you. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

Yup, when JJA was hired I went from “no-grabbies” from GvG to “no-grabbies” from JJA.

I don’t see much difference in your two scenarios. To me, it’s a matter of one focusing the advertising on the Charity as opposed to what could happen on the Date.

If sex was guaranteed – there would be an issue though.

But now I want to have sex with a celebrity.

:)

Please to recall, no one has ever at any time disputed this. You keep harping on it as though it’s under dispute, but it’s not.

Look, you go to a charity auction and buy a date with a local celebrity. Now, sometimes on these dates the auction winner lucks out and has sex with their date!

You go to another charity auction, which advertises not only a date for the winner, but a chance to have sex with the celebrity!

You do not see the difference between those two scenarios? Cause one would interest the police and the other wouldn’t.

The F&SF workshop deal isn’t prostitution, and doesn’t involve the same ethical problems. But there is a difference between something sometimes happening at a workshop, and things explicitly promised by a workshop.

Your assumption that Gordon would have eventually seen your week 5 stories is incorrect, unless your writing is already at a level where you are getting past JJA consistently. This is quite possible.

Well, I’m a writer, with a writer’s ego, so it’s really not possible for me to answer that question accurately. But I think that whether JJA would have passed my stories up to Gordon is immaterial–that’s the route one takes when one submits to F&SF. Gordon clearly has faith in JJA’s ability to reject things that would be a waste of Gordon’s time to read–and yes that includes stories of mine that JJA has failed to pass up. If being rejected by JJA weren’t essentially the same thing as being rejected by Gordon, Gordon would have found a new slush reader by now. The fact remains, I never needed to pay any kind of fee or jump through any hoops beyond properly formatting my manuscript in order to have the same chance at getting to Gordon’s desk as anyone.

It’s easy to think of slush readers as barring your access to the “real” editor, and imagine that if only Gordon saw your stuff he’d love it, but honestly, if JJA rejects it, it’s because Gordon would have anyway.

Nick and ABW – I agree that the explicit statement is strange in the number that Gordon thinks Gardner might find, but as I asked in post 80 -

How do you give that incentive when Gardner isn’t an acquiring editor?

Of course in most workshops they never mention it or even try to explicitly state that it is not standard or likely to acquire manuscripts at the workshop. You don’t need to if there is an editor who can acquire something. Everyone knows.

And yes, the other editors at my workshop weren’t acquiring editors, and are phenomenal instructors and I attended more workshops by them without acquiring editors involved as well as workshops with acquiring editors.

I don’t know that I would have gone to my first workshop if there wasn’t an acquiring editor there though. Now that I have been around more, I realize how much I have to learn and don’t think of it as much.

I honestly think that is the motive behind that announcement. I get where you guys are coming from. I agree, it’s a workshop. That’s the reason you should go. Not all writers are at the same point as you two or are as rational.