Interview

An Interview with Editor and Publisher Neil Clarke

Bethlehem Writers Group: Your formal training is in computer science and instructional technology, with work in several academic institutions. How have these backgrounds enriched your editing? 

Neil Clarke: The work I did with college faculty was very collaborative. My usual approach was to focus on areas where students were known to struggle and try to find creative solutions to break through those roadblocks. It often meant digging deep into the subject matter itself, so I developed a wide range of knowledge about very specific things, many of which have come into play in stories we’ve published. It taught me how to ask the right questions, do collaborative problem-solving, and most important, listen. 

The programming side of my career resulted in a different set of skills that I have a harder time describing. For me, programming was always very visual. I could always mentally picture the framework of what I was trying to build. I do the same with a short story. I see the structure, the logic, the path, and any potential bumps in the road. This frequently comes into play when reading slush or editing a story. 

 
BWG: Your authors and readership are truly international. Have you noticed any interesting qualities or preferences that distinguish a region’s writership or readership? 

NC: I’m a firm believer that no one country or language has a monopoly on science fiction. A great story can come from anyone, anywhere, at any point in their career. Short fiction seems to embrace that idea more than any other form, so it has been interesting to talk with authors and readers about their own local communities. 

History and culture play a huge role, but so does the impact of regional publishing industries that often favored foreign works over cultivating or supporting local authors. This has resulted in many situations where English language SF acted more like an invasive species, choking out opportunities.  

We also have a long history in the U.S. of not being entirely welcoming of works by foreign writers. I may not have contributed to that problem, but I have to live with its legacy. The number one question I get asked by foreign authors is “Am I allowed to submit my stories?” Things have certainly improved in recent years, but there’s still a long way to go. 

History and culture (in various countries, regions, communities, etc.) influence the experiences any writer brings to their work. It would be easy to talk in generalities, but all we ever see as outsiders is a small percentage that makes its way to us. I try not to extrapolate from such comparatively small data sets, but I can say that some of our storytelling styles and traditions are not universal. Being exposed to more of that variety would be good for us all.  

 
BWG: What qualities make a story stand out from the hundreds (thousands?) in your monthly slush-pile? 

NC: We’re reading over 1,200 stories each month, so they do start to blur together. I often recommend that writers put in some time as a slush reader somewhere. It gives you some perspective on what’s going on in the field and what you are actually up against. You’ll gain insight into the common themes currently making the rounds and the mistakes that almost everyone makes at some point in their career. Spotting them in your own can be difficult, but routinely catching them in the works of others will help build better instincts. 

I tell every slush reader that I want to see a story that makes them think or feel, something they’ll remember the next day. Those are the stories that rise above the crowd and are doing something I want to see. Regularly reading submissions can help you better understand just what that means. 

I also like to tell authors that there is a benefit to that blurring effect. We never remember the stories we’ve rejected. That means every submission starts with a clean slate. Just keep working on your craft and sending in your stories. Far too many authors give up way too early. 

 
BWG: In addition to the well-worn standards of writing (from Strunk & White’s Elements of Style to Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing), is there any advice you wish more writers put into practice? 

NC: Just write what you would like to read and follow the submission guidelines when sending out your work. All the rest falls into place with practice, patience, and persistence. 

 
BWG: As an editor, are there any sacred cows that you wish weren’t followed so stringently? 

NC: None that come to mind, but I’m also not really paying attention to what people consider sacred cows. 

 
BWG: I know several writers (myself included!) who are proud owners of “Rejected by Clarkesworld” business cards. What’s the story behind this endearing item? 

NC: Years ago, people would walk up to me at conventions, point, and say, “You rejected me!” No introduction. Just that. I was never sure how to respond, but my inner fifth-grader (the victim of much bullying) would be screaming at me to run. Deep down, I knew these authors were just being awkward, but I was never sure how to reply. At some point, I came upon the idea of employing a nonverbal response. The card grew out of that. 

I didn’t think it was more than a silly concept until I shared a mockup (using the cover art from our seventeenth issue) with some people online. The reaction was overwhelmingly positive, so I reached out to the artist, secured his permission, and found somewhere cheap to print five hundred of them. I had no idea how popular they would become. We’re now on the third printing. 

Ultimately, the card became a delightful little icebreaker. No more “you rejected me” introductions. Instead, people just ask if they can get a card, and the conversation goes from there. It’s introduced me to a lot of authors who might have otherwise been hesitant to chat. I consider that a win. 

 
BWG: Clarkesworld raised eyebrows in 2023 when it closed its submission portal due to the flood of AI-sourced and AI-assisted “manuscripts.” Without disclosing any secrets that might further train the robot overlords, how goes the battle against AI (or more correctly, Large Language Models) so far? 

NC: They are still trying, and we are still resisting.  

In the last year, we’ve seen an increase in works assisted by “AI.” Originally it was fully-generated works sent to us by people who were misled into thinking it was easy money. Now, more of it is coming from people who have been misled into thinking it can help improve their writing. (Newsflash: It doesn’t.) Both situations were depressing, but I find the recent trends even more disappointing. 

 
BWG: You regularly make prognostications on the future of AI in the writing universe, both at conventions and in written articles. What’s the latest that your crystal ball tells you? 
 
NC: I haven’t seen any changes that have caused me to revise my expectations for how things play out over the next few years. While we have a very pro-AI and anti-regulation government in office, bad behaviors will continue to go unchecked. Even if these companies were to go bankrupt tomorrow, we’d still be dealing with the mess they’ve created. 

In the end, readers are the ones who will keep the less-scrupulous publishers in check. If they continue to push back against generated covers, stories, narrations, and translations, that will slow the damage. Some will try anyway and if that hurts them financially, they’ll be less likely to do so in the future. It’s important that our community continue to stand in support of not only the authors and artists, but everyone who is part of the process. 

I still think the greatest threat is to discovery. Discovery impacts the entire field, from the publishers to the authors and onto the readers. It’s not exclusively a problem for traditional publishing; it hits independent authors and readers too. Finding the good stuff among the noise is only going to get worse. There is a breaking point, and the potential volume of generated work is almost limitless. Discovery channels are vulnerable to being drowned in slop, and curation will only become more difficult unless we can devise new tools to help us weather that storm. 

  

BWG: Have you written any stories of your own? 
 
NC: No. I’m a painfully slow writer and can’t turn off my inner editor. It undermines any joy I might have found from the work. 

  

BWG: Authors are almost always asked “who’s your favorite author?” Do you have an editor from whom you drew inspiration? Feel free to answer the first question as well! 

NC: So many editors influenced me as a reader and editor. It’s people like Ellen Datlow, Gardner Dozois, and Sheila Williams who come first to mind, but the list is quite extensive. 

 
BWG: What projects are in the works for Clarkesworld or for you personally? 

NC: This year is Clarkesworld’s twentieth anniversary, so a lot of my energy is going to things in support of that. I have other projects in the works, but it’s premature to be talking about them.