Anthologies

Anthologies

Bad by Design

MY OPINION

Personally, I’ve never seen anthologies as good moves for marketing. Even 30 years ago in print. Anthologies took me much longer to read than any other book if the same size. I’d read one story, turn to the next page, and stop to think if I had time to finish it. It just lead to a slower process overall. Each new story had a new pace and rhythm, another hiccup, and the best authors rarely contribute to anthologies.

In the used book store, anthologies were priced for nickels and dimes. If they were more expensive they’d just pile up.

I’ve published either 2 short stories min. To 1 novel length piece a year since 2007. From 1996-2006, I published a lot more often, much of it poetry, some teasers(often I was the ghost), or a short story to novella length from 2000-2006. (Grad HS 01. MA 07).

I never even considered submitting to an anthology, aside from a couple of poetry anthologies edited by associates. The short stories I sold were entirely to the magazine market.

The horrible, viscous, bloody, and sloooow death of the magazine has changed publishing more than digital media, I think. Personally.

Print magazines barely exist. Digital magazines price themselves too highly. And it shows. Websites, blogs, and sites like this tried to fill the role magazines one did, but progress was awkward, unreliable, and often impossible to read past ads.

Substack is different. As long as releases maintain the quality:content ratio and balance cost & bulk, substack works. However, it only seems to do this for individuals publishing themselves, or very small teams, if they maintain more than one newsletter.

This was in response to a publishing company analyzing the current market before releasing a single publication.

This link is to the original post.

https://substack.com/@exoteric1/note/c-135031396?r=4y4usq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

  • Jack Lhasa

Related Post