You are viewing oldcharliebrown

oldcharliebrown - 2008 Analysis: Top Fantasy/SF Markets, and New Authors [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
oldcharliebrown

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

2008 Analysis: Top Fantasy/SF Markets, and New Authors [Mar. 19th, 2009|01:09 pm]
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
F&SF: 5%
Analog: 5%
Asimov's: 20%
Baen's Universe: 21%
Intergalactic Medicine Show: 32%
Interzone: 40%
Realms of Fantasy: 51%
Clarkesworld: 61%
Strange Horizons: 68%
Weird Tales: 72%
Chizine: 78%
Cosmos: 80%
Fantasy Magazine: 88%

I offer no great conclusions with these results . . . apart that FM might have too many "new" authors. In any case, business models are different between magazines, and "new" authors might not be a part of that model. For those that care, the initial basis for "new" was applying Campbell eligibility structure, as a starting point, and anyone exceeding that was no longer considered "new." This seemed the easiest, simpliest way to break this down. If anyone has any questions please let me know.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 07:03 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I included most markets that were generally SFWA-qualified, but open. Neither Subterranean nor Postscripts are open markets. As such they could not be considered.
[User Picture]From: ken_schneyer
2009-03-19 07:17 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Here's a chance to educate me, if you have the time. What do you mean by an "open" market? Pretty much anyone can write to Postscripts with a query. (Of course, Postscripts isn't on the SFWA list anymore, so it could be disqualified that way -- but I still want to know what "open" means.)

And Interzone isn't on the SFWA list, is it?
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: ken_schneyer
2009-03-19 07:43 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I agree entirely about the quality of Interzone -- a smashing publication. But you stated a precise definition above, and I was testing how robust it was.

So, methodologically, you went to each issue of a given mag for 2008, wrote down the names of the writers, and checked it against the qualifying list on Writertopia? There are a lot of new writers who don't wind up on the Writeropia list because no one adds them. (They qualify for the list technically, but Bill tends to be more passive than active in this regard.)
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 08:33 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I did, but if they weren't listed there I also went to their websites, whenever possible. If they had professional sales before the Campbell Award existed, then they weren't new. I did as much background research to confirm that authors were indeed "new."
[User Picture]From: oldcharliebrown
2009-03-19 08:38 pm (UTC)

(Link)

To me an "open market" is open submissions, without any need for a query, so I saw no reason to include Postscripts. (Ignoring for the fact that most people treat it as an anthology, a fact that they acknowledged recently, by labelling, finally, as an anthology series). I did include Interzone because it is considered a top market, by Locus; and I included Weird Tales for the same reason. If there are markets I missed out, this is the opportunity for other people to indicate, publicly, what their breakdowns are. I'm just one guy, after all :-)