Magazine Submissions ???

Can't say I'd ever thought of including in the mag info for would-be contributors, but thinking about it, I'd probably begrude the space.

The reason why I tend to stick with a limited number of contributors is that, all too often, the stuff I get from new contributors (or would-be new contributors) is not very good. Sometimes downright awful.

There having been plenty of exceptions - and those that come instantly to mind include stuff written by PaulD on Macs; Tim Callaghan on Windows; Richard Jones on MediaStudio; Douglas Dixon on matters DVD.

And there are folk on this board that I've asked to consider writing for us but they've declined (or just never got round to doing anything) - despite me pressing them.

This may be because they (wrongly) lack confidence, or just don't have the time or inclination.

But quite a few of the people who start writing for us don't do a lot because their busy schedules don't given them time; and it really does take a lot of time to produce good copy unless you are a supremely gifted writer (and I don't regard myself as being such an animal, rest assured).

Of course, time is money, and since we don't pay contributors too well, that can be a bit of a disincentive, too.

Here I would just add, though, that CV's articles - particularly reviews - tend to be a lot longer than equivalents in other mags, because I believe that readers want and expect reviewers to look long and hard at the stuff they test and also want to have the gory details included.

The extended length of CV's articles should (and does) make life easier for contributors. Other mags commission shorter articles - sometimes so short that they review lacks any merit - though I'd be the first to say that it genuinely is harder (and can take longer) to write good short articles than good longer ones.

But, back to the main line of reasoning - if copy is poor, that makes life VERY difficult for me because - whether you notice it or not - there is a uniform quality to CV's published work that I strive to maintain.

If the words, concepts or general execution of any article are poor, it's me that has to do the toing and froing with the author and knocking it into shape, and this can take hours, sometime very many hours.

Too often, even if I ask a contributor to rewrite (perhaps more than once) - and give full guidance (and that has to be very specific and takes a lot of time to write) - I still get stuff back that I need to work on heavily. Sometimes, too, I get stuff back upon which I am not willing to put in any more work, and I flatly tell the author, "thanks for trying, but no thanks".

But, I really do try to be helpful and gentle with new contributors (I understand that our egos are fragile things).

But there does come a point when I stop trying - and sometimes cut up rough. This can happen if it's a supposed experienced journalist that won't listen to my advice, especially, if they're telling me that they ARE listening. But, normally, I try to let them down gently.

I'm sure that any of the contributors to the mag will be happy to confirm that I take a lot of time knocking stuff into shape.

Even the stuff from our best contributors can sometimes get pulled around in a big way - but they wouldn't be our best contributors if I had to do this to their work all the time.

In case you think that would-be contributors are given a raw deal, understand that I ALWAYS send them the relevant style notes for the mag before I commission any work (I've just emailed them to you, too), and I also explain in no uncertain terms that these guidelines need to be followed, and why (which I've not done in my email, cos I hope you'll get the idea from reading my comments here).

Yet, I've received submissions from:

* Top-flight techicians who think that they know better than me how to write (and, please believe me, they don't), and who totally ignore the guidelines and are unwilling to listen to my very clear and constructive (and gentle) criticism. Their prose can be gushing and over the top, or filled top-to-bottom with jargon, or simply unintelligible. Sometimes all three.

* Amateur video enthusiasts who complain to me, after I've pointed out (gently) that they've ignored my guidance completely, "everyone else tells me that my writing style is very distinctive and readable".

* Long-time, full-time freelance journalists who, to my surprise (actually, disgust is nearer the mark), evidently have little understanding of even the basics of journalism. I can't tell you the number of times I have been thoroughly disappointed by the quality of work of so-called pros.

They are great ones for completely ignoring the guidelines that I give them. Too often they assume - quite wrongly - that if x, y or z publication accepts what they write and leaves it largely unchanged, then whatever they write is bound to be good enough for CV. Foolish, foolish, people!

Anyway, as I said, I've sent you our guidelines (the ones for reviewers). If you fancy writing something for the mag, please read them thoroughly, and get back to me via email with your ideas.

Oh, and if ANYONE else here fancies having a go, please do also email me - I really am happy to get new contributors. Good ones, that is!

I am especially keen to bring on board people who come up with good feature ideas (and then execute them wll) and/or are able and willing to write good tutorials.

Just for the record, I began as a journalist by writing a trial article for a magazine and I'm always very happy when I end up helping people get into journalism this way.

Just in case anyone is interested, the first article I wrote - and I bought an electric typewriter and taught myself to touch-type to write it - was, a buyer's guide to microwave ovens.

This was back in the mid 70s, mind, when microwave ovens cost £300-£1100, and few people owned them. The next piece (for the same mag) was even sexier - a guide to buying irons!

The mag I wrote these pieces for was dire. I'd actually written a letter to the editor complaining how dire. To her credit, she said, "if you can do better, show us".

As was only right and proper though, the mag folded after a few more issues, cos it really was naff - apart from my articles, of course!

Bob C
(off to bed now, where I should have gone a long time ago, but I kind of hope that the time spent writing this response may pay off)

[This message has been edited by bcrabtree (edited 06 January 2004).]

Bob
Take a look at my post under the Jan issue.
I think that an other alternative might be to upen up additional forums and allow for reader submitted expanded articles to the DVdoctor forums.

John

Many thanks for the email and the attached documentation, which I am presently studying.

Having criticised CV’s content on more than one occasion I thought it right and proper, to at least submit one article just so that my conscience can remain clear for further attacks.

Seriously though, having written small articles in the past mainly for aero modelling and electronics magazines I thought I might put a little of my spare time to perhaps a topic or two which I feel may, (or may not be), of interest to the newcomer or intermediate reader of CV, hence the original question.

As your most eloquent reply indicates that you don’t take prisoners in the writing department, I may perhaps have bitten off more that I can chew, only time will tell.

I know from experience that magazines generally have “a direction” that they intend to follow so I will of course put the topics of articles to you before putting to much on paper, as I have in the past fallen foul of editors who already had boxfuls of articles on the very subject that was proposed.

Many Thanks
Dave.

Can anyone who has emailed me asking to be sent reviewer's or features' guidelines please email me again.

There were two requestst I know I received but didn't respond to and can no longer find.

Bob C