|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on May 6, 2021 16:51:38 GMT
As you can see, I've deleted my comment, so just ignore it. ?
|
|
|
Post by johnnymains on May 6, 2021 17:45:38 GMT
Cro - here are the facts:
David Riley releases contents of a new book. You go on the attack, out of nowhere, for no reason. Not even a well done. You're called out on it. You then go after the authors of one of the stories. I call you a snob.
Now, the small press is having a hard enough time as it is, Covid is making things much tougher. That anyone is bringing out books at all in these times is a lovely thing to behond. For someone to chat shit about the process of a book and the contents of a book before it's even been published is just poor form. So what if he uses mates? So what if he uses holdovers? Just because it's not good enough for you doesn't mean it's not good enough. Go take a nap.
|
|
|
Post by cromagnonman on May 7, 2021 10:48:44 GMT
Cro - here are the facts:
David Riley releases contents of a new book. You go on the attack, out of nowhere, for no reason. Not even a well done. You're called out on it. You then go after the authors of one of the stories. I call you a snob.
Now, the small press is having a hard enough time as it is, Covid is making things much tougher. That anyone is bringing out books at all in these times is a lovely thing to behond. For someone to chat shit about the process of a book and the contents of a book before it's even been published is just poor form. So what if he uses mates? So what if he uses holdovers? Just because it's not good enough for you doesn't mean it's not good enough. Go take a nap.
If disliking the work of a particular author makes me a snob then aren't we all guilty of that here? Or do you draw some fundamental distinction between the living and the dead? Between the amateur and the pro? It seems to me that it is the challenge to your precious publisher's prerogative that is really getting your goat. Clearly something you're not used to in your egotistical ivory tower. Of course it is good to see books being published. But if one of those books ends up being largely a showcase for the work of mates and favourites then why not just solicit the work from them to begin with instead of going through the charade of an unbiased submissions process? I genuinely hope the book does well. There has been a resurgence of interest in sword & sorcery in the last year or two and any outlet for new work is to be welcomed. And applauded. The really disappointing thing here is how quickly the well of argument ran dry and descended to the name calling of the infant's playground. Clearly the respect and toleration for a dissenting view evaporates here where vested self-interest is concerned. But you can save your store of supercilious asides for someone else now. Because this is my last posting on this forum. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to engage with all the good people on this forum and I wish you all well. Goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by Swampirella on May 7, 2021 11:16:15 GMT
Cro - here are the facts:
David Riley releases contents of a new book. You go on the attack, out of nowhere, for no reason. Not even a well done. You're called out on it. You then go after the authors of one of the stories. I call you a snob.
Now, the small press is having a hard enough time as it is, Covid is making things much tougher. That anyone is bringing out books at all in these times is a lovely thing to behond. For someone to chat shit about the process of a book and the contents of a book before it's even been published is just poor form. So what if he uses mates? So what if he uses holdovers? Just because it's not good enough for you doesn't mean it's not good enough. Go take a nap.
Because this is my last posting on this forum. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to engage with all the good people on this forum and I wish you all well. Goodbye. Take a (long) breather by all means, but please don't go!
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on May 7, 2021 12:11:57 GMT
I wasn't going to reply but I really must take issue with this statement: "But if one of those books ends up being largely a showcase for the work of mates and favourites then why not just solicit the work from them to begin with instead of going through the charade of an unbiased submissions process?"
Yes, a couple of the writers are what could loosely be referred to as "mates", though neither of them are actually close friends - one I rarely meet other than at conventions, while the other I have never met face to face. I admit it is always more difficult to reject stories by friends and acquaintances, but that's something I have had to do while editing this and other books. It's something a responsible editor can't avoid. I would add that those concerned have always accepted their rejections well and have never complained. It's something a writer gets used to. Hell, I have had more than a few stories rejected by friends over the years - and by much closer friends than those involved in Swords and Sorceries.
The plain fact is that the writers who are friends and those I have published previously who had stories accepted in this anthology managed to do so solely because they are damned good writers - and sent stories I personally felt were right for this book. And I'll tell you this: not every friend escaped rejection this time, though none of them complained about it.
Plus half the writers whose stories I accepted were unknown to me till they submitted their stories.
So, no, it wasn't a charade. No one, whoever they were, stood a better chance than anyone else. It depended on what they wrote. It's up to you whether you believce that or not.
In any case, I see no reason for you to leave the Vault. I would much prefer it if you didn't.
|
|
|
Post by johnnymains on May 7, 2021 12:23:47 GMT
Richard, all of this because David rejected one of your short stories? Wow. Okay, it's your decision - I for one would be sad to see you go, your contribution to the Vault is immesurable, your contribution to paperback history moreso.
|
|
|
Post by 𝘗rincess 𝘵uvstarr on May 7, 2021 13:13:53 GMT
I thought using friends is normal for small magazines, especially if the field they operate in is very small. Isn't networking part of all publishing.
|
|
|
Post by Shrink Proof on May 8, 2021 6:25:58 GMT
I thought using friends is normal for small magazines, especially if the field they operate in is very small. Isn't networking part of all publishing. What are these "friends" of which you speak? This is a strange and alien concept to me...
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on May 8, 2021 12:01:49 GMT
I thought using friends is normal for small magazines, especially if the field they operate in is very small. Isn't networking part of all publishing. What are these "friends" of which you speak? This is a strange and alien concept to me... This may be how a tiny number of small magazines work, but generally it's the quality of the contributions that matter most to any editor, whoever writes them. And certainly, when you wish to have your book bought by as wide a range of readers as possible - and to be well reviewed by as wide a range of reviewers as possible - no editor in their right mind would put friendship above quality. I would certainly never put the reputation of a series I was hoping to continue for some time to come at risk by publishing inferior stories simply because the author happened to be a mate. That would not help me nor would it be any good for the reputation of the writer themselves in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on May 21, 2021 15:44:46 GMT
I suppose controversy is a sign of life. I rarely chip in on this sort of thing because it tends to get nowhere but here goes.
I rarely get published. When I do I tend to stick to the publisher out of a) loyalty and support for the publication and b) because I rarely get published and the market is tiny.
The lately lamented Charles Black liked my work and published everything I sent but one story. He was totally professional. Johnny Mains published me several times and was equally professional. Other editors have been similarly professional.
In this particular case no one could say that David Riley didn't support my work as he has previously published two of my collections. Are we linked in an old pals act? Well, we met once at the World Horror thingy in Brighton. We had coffee together and chatted away amicably and we are "Facebook friends". We clearly share a love of the genre.
I hope David doesn't mind me revealing this but he rejected all my contributions to his recent 'Swords and Sorceries' anthologies. I was very disappointed by these rejections but you know what - I simply accepted that the stories were either not up to scratch or didn't fit what David was after. I didn't think for a second that David is only publishing his pals. As with every editor I've encountered, he'll like certain authors and artists and he'll find some people easier to work with than others; but I'd hazard that he never compromises his work because of a preference.
I will also add that on at least one occasion I have met a publisher who wasn't like that and my experience in the music business has thrown up bings of cases of sickening preferential treatment. David seems to just want good stories that fit his conception of the publication.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on May 22, 2021 6:24:45 GMT
I apologise - I mistook your puritanical snobbery for something else. Please, as you were.
Oh, we've abandoned dialogue for insults have we. Well that's ok. It's a shame you weren't around when Pitts's original cover illustration was being ridiculed on another forum as looking like the effort of a third grader. Because no one seemed much inclined to defend it there and in the wake of the criticism another was substituted. But that must be another one of those coincidences. Because otherwise it would look as if slurs and ridicule carry weight at PUP as long as they originate somewhere else while a mild dissenting opinion here is considered beyond the pale. Its an impressive display of little publishers umbrage you're demonstrating. But the last time I looked editorial decisions weren't the judgements of the cardinal's conclave: neither infallible, divinely inspired or indisputable. And I'm not going to be kowtowed from voicing a legitimate opinion because it offends the quailing sensibilities of your pompous ego. Gosh, I missed the criticism of Jim's original art. If it was of the standard you describe, it must have been very untypical. He's a fine inventive artist of many talents, which is why I contributed to the book that showcases his work.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on May 30, 2021 16:15:45 GMT
For those who are interested in swords and sorcery stories, I'm posting a link here to details about all the writers who will be in Swords & Sorceries: Tales of Heroic Fantasy Volume 2, which will be pubished as a paperback and an ebook in a few weeks time.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Jun 8, 2021 12:36:12 GMT
We are excited to announce that Swords & Sorceries: Tales of Heroic Fantasy Volume 2 is now available as a paperback and ebook (kindle). The paperback is £11.99 and the kindle is just £2.99. The contents of Volume 2 are: Introduction by David A. Riley The Essence of Dust by Mike Chinn Highjacking the Lord of Light by Tais Teng Out in the Wildlands by Martin Owton Zale and Zedril by Susan Murrie Macdonald The Amulet and the Shadow by Steve Dilks Antediluvia: Seasons of the World by Andrew Darlington A Thousand Words for Death by Pedro Iniguez Stone Snake by Dev Agarwal Seven Thrones by Phil Emery The Eater of Gods by Adrian Cole Illustrations by Jim Pitts. It's now available to order direct or from Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Jun 21, 2021 12:30:01 GMT
A little video my daughter Cassandra created for Swords & Sorceries: Tales of Heroic Fantasy Volume 2.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Aug 17, 2021 10:26:27 GMT
|
|