When
invented in the 19th century magazines were cutting edge. They were
a step up, so to speak, from newspapers. They provided a more in depth look at
various subjects. They educated people about Some specialized on certain
subjects. For example when the electric railway industry blossomed a century
ago trade journals were created for it providing useful news and information.
They were also a place where novels were serialized and provided an outlet for
short stories. Today, for the most part, this is long gone.
In
the 20th century one thinks of such great magazines as Punch,
National Geographic, Life, Mc Calls, to name a few. Here in Canada we had
Saturday Night. Macleans and Chatelaine. Magazines were a must read. Today
magazines, like newspapers, are under siege from t.v. and the Internet. Simply
put magazines are not keeping up, although they certainly are trying.
From
a writer’s point of view magazines have gone from good to bad to horrible.
Where to start? Well the pay hasn’t increased since about the 1960s or maybe
the 1970s and yet demands on writers have. Most magazines now want all rights
and some are demanding a waiver of moral rights and they aren’t paying for
these extra rights. Prior to this writers could make badly needed extra money
by selling an article to one magazine and then turning around and selling it to
one or two or even more other magazines. The acquisition of all rights kills
this. Most contracts in the past were negotiable today they’re take it or leave
it.
Some
publications pay on publication, which leaves the writer stuck if they don’t
run it, as two such publications did with me. Try going into a store and taking
something, like a stove or even a bag of chips, and saying I’ll pay for if I
use it. Some magazines are now passing on some of their costs to the writer,
without increasing the pay, like, for example, demanding that you cover them in
the event of a lawsuit.
Then
there are the insane things some magazines do. Writer’s Digest, which
proclaimed itself the leading magazine for writers, for years had a one or two
page rambling form rejection. This continued after one writer did an article on
the check list form rejection.
Too
many magazines talk down to writers, like calling the writer by their name, but
signing their reply with something like “The Editors” or “Editorial Staff”.
Another way is for some to use a condescending tone, treating a professional
writer like an idiot.
And
how do you deal with this? I queried a magazine I’ve written for several times
proposing to do a piece on the 100th anniversary of the extinction
of the passenger pigeon. The editor told me it would be more appropriate for
their online site, whose editor told me it would be more appropriate for the
print magazine. Scream!
Then
there was one editor who wrote an article for a major writer’s magazine complaining
about the poor writers he was dealing with. However, when I checked out the
magazine I found they paid poorly, demanded all rights and paid on publication.
In my view the editor got exactly what the magazine deserved.
This
isn’t to say that writers’ are perfect. We aren’t. Even the best of us make
mistakes, as do the best editors. And there are too many amateurs, in the
negative sense of the word, who are willing to write for free, who fail to
study the publication and who can barely put two sentences together.
What
is badly needed is a good shakeup to bring magazines kicking and screaming into
the 21st century. Pay needs to be substantially increased, contracts
need to be made more equitable to the writer, writers need to be treated with
respect and a system of cultivating new quality professional writers needs to
be put in place. Until that time comes writers will continue to abandon
magazines and content will suffer.
No comments:
Post a Comment