with Heather Delabre and Paula Morrow

Mel is Mel Boring, moderator of this interview with Heather Delabre and Paula Morrow and web editor of the ICL Web Site.

Green shows the names or usernames of people and the questions they asked Chat Guests Paula Morrow and Heather Delabre.

Mel: A WARM WELCOME to you! Tonight I am so PLEASED to be able to bring two good friends to visit with you in the ICL Chat Room! Heather Delabre and Paula Morrow will feel like friends of yours, too, because they have been our Chat Guests previously, individually. When I first invited this Dynamic Duo, I thought they might chat about nonfiction query letters and cover letters. But because those topics might be thoroughly covered in just a few minutes, and because Heather's and Paula's magazines do not take query letters, they wisely suggested discussing the whole gamut of aspects involved in writing effective and saleable nonfiction for children's magazines. All three of the magazines these two talented editors edit, Babybug, Ladybug and Spider, cover children's ages from six months to nine years, and have a combined circulation of close to 300,000. So tonight, we have expert editors with us who can talk with experienced authority about the "Nonfiction Submissions Editors Love." Heather and Paula, WELCOME BACK to the ICL Chat Room!

Paula: Hi, Mel, it's great to be back!

Heather: Thanks for having us, Mel!

Mel: You are WARMLY WELCOME! Heather, you first, alphabetically, did you do much reading and writing as a girl growing up? And is there a connection from that to your now being a children's editor?

Heather: I read voraciously when I was a child, Mel, but I can't say that all those books were classics. I admit to loving R.L. Stine as a preteen. LOL! The writing I didn't do as much. I liked to bask in others' words.

Mel: If you were like me, MANY of those "books" you read may’ve been comic books! J Paula, what influences in your childhood and growing up do you think made you a writer and editor?

Paula: Ditto Heather: voracious reading—anything I could get my hands on, good, bad, or just plain strange! Loved to write, too.

Mel: Heather, how did you come to Spider Magazine? Wasn't it right out of college? How did you get where you are—a position many children’s writers would love to have?

Heather: It WAS right out of college. I'd interned with the company during the summer before my senior year and they must've actually liked me because they called me and asked me if I wanted to come and work for them. And OF COURSE I said yes. (Who wouldn't?) :)

Mel: YUP! Paula, tell us briefly about the origin of Babybug and Ladybug, which came after the founding of Cricket Magazine. Why and how was it decided to expand into those two?

Paula: Cricket had been a great success, of course, but it was for older readers—middle grades and up. People were asking for something younger, so the company launched Ladybug in 1990 and then followed with Babybug in 1994 in response to the latest research about the importance of starting readers early.

Mel: What ages are Babybug and Ladybug for then, Paula?

Paula: Babybug is a read-to-me magazine for infants and toddlers, we say 6 months to 2 years, but we know people start sooner and stay longer. :-) And Ladybug is 2 to 7 years.

Mel: Then what ages is Spider for, Heather?

Heather: Spider is for ages six to nine, but, as with Babybug and Ladybug, our readers tend to hang on for much longer than that narrow range.

Mel: Well, ALL your magazines are for us oldersters too, because I LOVE them all three!

Paula: Aw, thanks!

Heather: <Grin>

Mel: For both of you experienced editors, what are the approximate percentages of your total submissions that come from fiction versus nonfiction?

Heather: I'd say that, for Spider, about 75 percent are fiction and only 25 percent are nonfiction.

Paula: Oooh, that's hard. We don't count, but my guess would be more than 80% are fiction and poetry across all the magazines. Correction: the bug magazines!

Mel: So, I'm thinking that if we were to advise rising children's writers here, writing NONfiction would be a best bet—is that right?

Paula: Absolutely!

Heather: Yep!

Mel: Heather, what specific kinds of NONfiction are you looking for at Spider—or NOT looking for?

Heather: I'm looking for engaging historical pieces, "hard science" pieces. For example, one recent submission that caught my attention was about the origin of the moon. It's just so different from the usual animal life-cycle pieces we receive. The key word, though, is ENGAGING. Lists of facts in narrative form won't cut it. Our rambunctious young readers don't often have long attention spans, so the info you offer has to be presented in a way that will make kids sit up and take notice from the beginning. As for what I'm NOT looking for, those animal life-cycle pieces, UNLESS the manuscript is about a little-known or super-weird or super-gross creature. I see way too many manuscripts about tree frogs, house cats, bears, etc. The market is glutted with books and articles about these animals, so go for something unique!

Mel: Paula, is NONfiction for the preschoolers and toddlers a big more vague to define? Where does story end and "fact" begin?

Paula: To a toddler, everything is "story." But that's okay! We call our nonfiction pieces "world around you," and they simply expand the world of the young child. We look for a sense of joy or wonder or playfulness or delight, showing something interesting from a child's point of view.

Paula: I certainly think so!

Heather: I do, too, although I'm certain that some research does exist to back that up.

Paula: The goal is to help them develop a love of language and learning, which of course is an advantage when they start school and in life all around!

Heather: Yes, if a manuscript is sent back to our office from an off-site first reader, it's likely that several editors will read it and we do consider each and every manuscript for all age ranges.

Paula: Let me take a tangent here, Mel, to explain about the reaches of the Cricket Group, OK?

Mel: Yes!

Paula: We're in three locations, the "bug" or literary magazines in Peru, Illinois, the nonfiction magazines focusing on science in Chicago, and the nonfiction magazines focusing on social sciences in Peterborough, NH. We share manuscripts within each office, but we don't forward them from city to city.

Mel: Tell us about those mags in New Hampshire, will you, Heather?

Heather: Sure, Mel, if I can recall all the titles off the top of my head: Cobblestone, Faces, Calliope, Dig, Appleseeds and Footsteps. Muse, Click, and Ask are our Chicago site mags. We in the "bug mags" aren't much involved in the magazines at other sites... J

Mel: Heather, this one’s for you:

Heather: Well, as I said earlier, I'm looking for pieces that give engaging information on truly unique topics. We like variety in our magazines, and we want to keep the young readers captivated.

Paula: Very, very simple and accessible, usually just a couple of short sentences that introduce something in a baby's world in a way that parents will be able to read 50 to 100 times in a row—without going crazy! For example, it's important for little ones to learn prepositions, the connectors that make our language comprehensible. So a Babybug nonfiction piece could be the cat is ON the sofa, the cat is UNDER the table, etc. But don't use that one, we've already got it! :-)

Paula: Let's take turns on that, do you want to go first, Heather?

Heather: Sure, Paula! Well, finding the time to write IS something I struggle with. Our jobs keep us incredibly busy and, contrary to popular belief, we do actually have social lives to work around, too :-) But I'd say that I get at least one solid evening a week to dedicate to my own writing.

Paula: Let's see, 1976, that was still the perfect-bound, right? Hardback-type spine?

Mel: Yes, I think so.

Paula: The size has increased, the magazine is all full-color now, instead of 2-color, but the content is pretty constant, in that we seek the very best writing to present to children.

Heather: Paula, would you like to tackle the much-writing-yourself question now?

Paula: Sure. Not much to add, just that editing is at least a 60-hour/week job.

Heather: AT LEAST!

Paula: But at Cricket Group, we don't like to do in-house writing, believing that freelancers writing about their own passions offer the best work. So my own writing is generally NOT for our magazines. I freelance elsewhere, when I can find the time.

Heather: Ditto.

Mel: BothYouEditors: There is a MARVELOUS book that tells the Cricket story, which was published on the magazine’s 30th Anniversary a couple of years ago. Is that available to everyone?

Paula: YES! Drop in our Web link, Mel, and people can order their very own copies!

Heather: It's an absolutely beautiful book.

Paula: I think it's even on sale. :-)

Mel: THANKS! That is a book that is ABSOLUTELY fascinating!

Mel: It has an article by and about Trina Schart Hyman, the great illustrator who recently died, which article is PRICELESS by itself, in my opinion.

Heather: It sure does. Trina wrote that piece, reminiscing about the early, early days of Cricket. It's hysterical. The children's literature world has lost a truly amazing presence.

Mel: Having mentioned one of the BEST EVER, let's talk about illustrators. Paula, tell us about the illustrators who illustrate for Cricket. How do they approach the magazines, and how do you keep their individual styles in mind?

Paula: I don't have to; we have great Art Directors to do that! We have huge files of art samples from people who have illustrated for us in the past, or who would like to illustrate for us in the future. For every issue, we have an art meeting at which the Art Director presents 4 or 5 possible artists for each manuscript in the issue and together we decide which would be our first choice, keeping in mind the overall look of the issue, balance of styles, etc. Then the Art Director calls the first- choice artists to offer the assignments. Sometimes an artist is busy, and we'll go to our second or third choice, but they're all top-notch so third choice is still primo!

Mel: YEA for art directors!!! Heather, are YOU thinking ILLUSTRATION from the FIRST second you start reading any submission? Or is that a later thought?

Heather: Illustration doesn't come into play too much when first reading a submission. I'm looking, first and foremost, for excellent writing, but there ARE some instances when I'll think "Whoa—this manuscript has stellar illustration potential" or "This manuscript relies too heavily on illustration to pull off the desired effect."

Mel: Could you two editors speak in tandem on this, please? Tell us what the JOURNEY of any manuscript is at the Cricket Group, from the INPUT to the OUTGO.

Heather: Whoa, you want to begin, Paula?

Paula: OK—can I do it in a nutshell, I wonder?

Mel: Yes! The nutshell of a very LARGE nut!

Paula: First reader: former editors or others with in-house experience, who KNOW our magazines. They have the authority to form-reject but are instructed to be generous. About 10% of all submissions pass the first reader and come back to the office for a second reading. The first in-house editor may also form-reject, and that weeds out about half. But once the manuscript passes an in-house editor, it will definitely be read by at least two other people before a decision is made. Want to take it from there, Heather, or is that enough?

Heather: Great nutshell, Paula! Not much else to add, really.

Mel: GREAT summary, in a coconut! BOTH of you: How many submissions do you get per week or month?

Heather: It depends on the time of the year.

Paula: Last time I asked, it was about 1500 a month for all five of the bug magazines combined.

Heather: Yep, she's dead-on. Don't know about the other two offices, in Chicago and New Hampshire.

Mel: Handling ALL those submissions, do you find yourself saying: "I HOPE, HOPE, HOPE there's SOME nonfiction, and GOOD nonfiction stuff!"?

Paula: Sure do!

Heather: Most definitely!

Paula: Every envelope is a promise; it might be the next masterpiece!

Mel: Suppose I wanted to write a piece about mushrooms. Would EITHER of you consider it for your magazines, if it were "right"? And what would be the "right" way to do a mushrooms piece for your three magazines?

Heather: LOL! I'm actually publishing an article about fungi in a 2005 issue.

Paula: What specific aspect of mushrooms? What's your "hook"? A writer can't just pick a topic, s/he has to focus on some specific angle that makes the article stand out from an encyclopedia entry. The "right" way would involve considerations of age and abilities and interests of the target reader, which of course would be different for each magazine.

Paula: Want to describe your fungi article as an example, Heather?

Heather: Sure, Paula. The tone of this piece is what really drew us to it. I mean—do you have any idea as to how terribly boring (pun intended, Mel!) an article on fungi could be?

Mel: YUP! I'm asleep already!

Heather: This author made the information very relevant to today's kids. She not only gave solid information about how mushrooms spread spores, etc., but she also had a fun, upbeat tone, telling kids that they could find fungi almost anywhere, their back yards, their refrigerator, their shower walls, their feet (ICK!). It's a lot of fun.

Paula: Oooh, gross!

Heather: It's very necessary for the child to be able to relate the information to objects or situations that are in their lives everyday. It makes the absorption process easier and fun.

Mel: Now, what about MY mushroom idea? Maybe my angle would be, uh, mushrooms and fairies, to kind of combine the FACT and the FICTION, a kind of "FACTION". Mushrooms and Fairies.

Paula: It's hard to pull off.

Heather: VERY hard to pull off.

Paula: Although it could be done by a skillful writer (which I'm sure you are, Mel). I wouldn't recommend that a beginner try it, though, until s/he had some good solid nonfiction under her/his belt.

Mel: I probably won't submit it then! L

Paula: This seems like a perfect lead-in to the list of what Muse likes in an article. Want to drop that in?

Mel: Yes!

Paula: There are 8 things. I guess I should copy & paste them one by one, right?

Mel: Cut away and paste away!

Paula: You can go on and chat if you like, and I'll just interrupt as I get them together. Oh, here they are, already:

1. First-person account either by a scientist, historian, artist, or other professional, or by someone with journalistic skills who has accompanied or interviewed such people.

2. Evidence that the author has the credentials, either scholarly or journalistic, to turn in an article that will pass review by the Smithsonian curators.

3. Written for a magazine rather than for a textbook. This really amounts to writing in a conversational style. The article should resemble the sort of informal account, mixing description and quotation and anecdote, which you’d give a friend.

4. The topic should be of interest to kids, something they brush up against in their everyday lives or, if it is more exotic, something they are likely to be able to fathom without lengthy explanation.

5. On the other hand, the topic should also be of current interest to those in the field, not a warmed-over version of something that appeared long ago in the science press.

6. Ideally the article will be witty and the tone enthusiastic.

7. Short. We prefer articles to be no longer than 1500 words. The length puts constraints on the topic and the treatment because there is little space to provide background.

8. Some evidence that the author has looked at published issues.

Mel: EXCELLENT summary, Paula!

Paula: It probably raises more questions, I'll bet.

Mel: What is the age range of Muse, and what is its "editorial philosophy "?

Heather: You're on a roll, Paula, so go for it! Besides, I need to remove my cat, Chaos, from the desk, so please carry on.

Paula: Muse targets ages 9-14, although kids continue reading it beyond 14, and the philosophy is to present fascinating nonfiction, not strictly limited to science but also including the arts, social sciences, and the past, present, and future. It's published jointly by Cricket and Smithsonian, which should give a pretty clear idea of what it’s like.

Mel: So MAYBE my idea of an article linking mushrooms and fairies, fact and fancy, would that "amuse Muse"?

Heather: Unfortunately, I doubt it, Mel. Muse doesn't do much with fiction at all, what little they incorporate in articles is very strategically placed.

Mel: Oh DARNS! I'm crying! L

Heather: Aw, Mel! We love ya.

Mel: Hey, THANKS! J Let's backtrack to cover something mentioned earlier:

Paula: You do this one, Heather, since you once were one.

Heather: Sure thing, Paula. Every single unsolicited manuscript that comes into our office gets bundled up by our executive assistant and mailed off to off-site readers. As Paula mentioned earlier, these folks are people who have a strong understanding of our editorial mission and the types of things we accept. The first readers are the first step in weeding manuscripts; they form- reject the ones that they don't feel will make the editorial cut in-house, and send the strong contenders back to the office for the editors to review.

Mel: It SOUNDS like with the whole body of submissions, there WILL ALWAYS be a large portion—a majority—that will "miss the mark." And the off-siters are people practiced and trained to recognize those?

Heather: Yes, the first readers have had in-house training. Some are former editors, and some, as I was, are former interns, but all of them are highly skilled people and, as Paula said earlier, they're instructed to be very generous.

Paula: But take heart, writers: MANY of the submissions are from people who obviously have never looked at our magazines or taken a writing course. So by studying your craft, you're already at the head of the line!

Mel: Those are GREATLY encouraging words, Paula! One of the KILLING things about submitting our writing is that only a small part of even the GOOD stuff is going to be published. Thus, rejection. Does either of you still deal with rejection of your OWN writing? And what advice do you have to "keep our chins up"?

Heather: Aw, shoot. Rejection is a part of life.

Paula: Of course! Rejection is a fact of life!

Heather: LOL! I get rejections, too

Paula: My personal response is to turn around and send the piece out again, preferably within a week.

Heather: My response is a bit different. I put it in my desk drawer for at least four months, and then I take it out again and read it, and I usually find great points of revision that I wish I'd seen earlier! But either way, don't let rejections get you down. You have ICL, your critique groups, etc., on your side to help you hone your craft. Success will happen!

Paula: OK, I'll qualify my response. If I was writing to a specific theme list, the manuscript may not be suitable for submission elsewhere without revision. But often, there's more than one market for a good piece.

Mel: I don't want to wax too philosophical here, but do you think there is a generation that has been taught they can succeed at ANYthing they want to? And is that generation coming up against such rejection as in writing, having not been prepared to handle it?

Heather: Have you seen the latest issue of Muse, Mel?

Mel: No. What's in it?

Heather: There's an excellent article about the fallacies of the self-esteem push in and for our young people, a truly thought-provoking piece.

Paula: My take on this isn't whether one can succeed at ANYthing, so much as that I see a younger generation raised on—what to call it? Fast-food attitudes?

Heather: Yes!

Paula: Wanting success to come immediately, lacking the patience to persevere. Sometimes it simply takes time!

Mel: I am GOING to read that article, too! THANKS! Margie e-mailed to ask:

Heather: Hi, Margie! I loved your piece, too! But as I mentioned earlier, illustration is usually a secondary thought. The writing must be strong and the piece engaging, or we won't accept it.

Mel: So you can't advise us writers to "think illustration"?

Heather: In fact, I'd advise against it. Too many times, authors get caught in the trap of thinking "Gee, this scene is a bit too difficult to explain in words. I'll just let them show it in illustrations," which is the wrong view to take. As an author, it's your job to make the reader see that scene in her/his head, illustrations or not.

Paula: Note that if we want info for illustrations, we'll ask you to provide sources we can send to the artist. That comes AFTER the piece has been accepted.

Mel: Either one of you editors: "Exact Word Count" is mentioned in your listing. What do you do with "exact word count" on manuscripts you receive? Where do you go with it? How crucial is it?

Paula: CRUCIAL! Magazines only have so many pages. Our word limits allow for what we know we can successfully include. If we have a limit of 1000 words and you send 1500, somebody is going to have to cut 500 words, and we'll be a lot happier if you do it before you submit.

Paula: Primary as in original. If you're writing a historical piece, for example, a secondary source is a book about the period, and a primary source is a journal or newspaper published DURING the period. If it's a science piece, the same thing in a different field—a secondary source is a book or article about someone else's research, and a primary source is a book or article written by the researcher personally. Primary just means going back to the first source.

Mel: Heather: What kinds of sources should you avoid in bibliographies?

Heather: There are a number of things to avoid putting in bibliographies. First and foremost are encyclopedic sources. Third-graders use encyclopedias for their "research," but we adults have to get very serious about the information we're presenting, and an encyclopedia's general overview of information just won't cut it. Something else to avoid is having a biblio comprised entirely of Internet sources. Some Internet sources are fine, and, in fact, are sometimes the best places to find the most up-to-date scientific information. The problem lies in distinguishing between official and unofficial web sites. I've used this example before, but it's the difference between having The Audubon Society's web site on your biblio or having Joe's Web Page of Burrds on it. One more thing to avoid doing is providing an extensive biblio with stellar sources, and using only ONE of those sources to write your article. This happened a few months ago, the author's biblio was great, and we accepted the piece. But when I began fact checking, I realized that she only bothered to read one book on her biblio. Some sources contain information that cancel out the info in older sources, and vice-versa. It’s important to read each and every source and compare the info you find in all of them. Whew. Sorry that was so long-winded!

Mel: But you detailed it with things we need to know—THANKS! An encyclopedia is maybe a kind of "fast (reading) food"? Corner-cutting in writing articles?

Heather: Precisely!

Paula: Even an "official" web site can throw you a curve. I once had someone cite a statistic from a university site, ending in .edu, which should be reliable, right? Only trouble is, when I checked it out, I discovered the university had sponsored a science fair, and the statistic was taken from an 11-year-old child’s project. It was NOT accurate. The author should have caught that! DO check your sources carefully.

Heather: Oh, yes, that's another pet peeve, don't use children's nonfiction books as sources on YOUR bibliography.

Mel: Heather again: What do you think makes up a SOLIDLY formed bibliography?

Heather: Well-rounded bibliographies are the best way to go. Primary sources are the best, of course, but those aren't always available. Included should be official Internet sites, books, journals, and at least one interview with a professional in that field or someone associated with a particular sector of research. I have one author who has the best formed biblios I've ever seen. J.A., are you lurking out there? ;-) She always has a well-rounded biblio that includes all the things I mentioned above.

Paula: By the way, I assume everyone knows we've long since passed Babybug, with this erudite discussion of bibliographies. :-) Although, come to think of it, research is important even there. You have to understand child development in order to write age-appropriately for tiny kids.

Mel: Paula, I've seen SOME "interview" pieces that seemed as if they sent questions hastily to ONE person, then built an entire article, almost "regardless" of the subject they interviewed. Do you ever see any of that sort of thing?

Paula: Alas, yes. Back to what Heather said: The sources should be varied and well-rounded. Even if you're writing about the work of one specific person in one specific field, you'll need to do some advance research into the topic BEFORE the interview so that you can ask intelligent questions and understand the answers. The bibliography should reflect this.

Mel: Heather, you mentioned J.A. before. The Cricket Group has had some very STELLAR authors publish in them, some for the first time. Any particular author whose research makes them stellar?

Heather: Of course, J.A. is one of them (name withheld, just in case she doesn't want the press), and I have another Cricket author (I do some editing for Cricket, as well as Spider) who is also amazing at her work. I hesitate to mention names, Mel, without their permission. I wish Adam were in the room; he's rather the god of nonfiction research around Cricket and I've heard him raving about wonderful manuscripts he's received. (Also ranting about dreadful ones, LOL!)

Mel: Heather, I'm thinking of Erik Larsen, author of The Devil in the White City (the nonfiction book about Chicago's World's Fair). How does a successful writer like him succeed so well in research, do you think?

Heather: I actually just found out today that Paula wrote an article based on Larsen's research styles in Once Upon A Time. And I pulled a quote from his book, which I think is important enough to type in here.

Mel: GOOD!

Paula: I second that!

Heather: He wrote: "I do not employ researchers, nor did I conduct any primary research using the Internet. I need physical contact with my sources, and there's only one way to get it. To me every trip to a library or archive is like a small detective story. There are always little moments on such trips when the past flares to life, like a match in the darkness. On one visit to the Chicago Historical Society I found the actual notes that Prendergast send to Trude. I saw how deeply the pencil dug into the paper."

Mel: SO EXCELLENT!!! No WONDER Larsen is so successful, and so REAL in his writing!

Paula: Yes, within the same geographical office.

Heather: But it's still important that you read the magazines carefully. If you're way off-base with your age estimates editors will know that you don't have working knowledge of the magazines.

Mel: Paula, I'm writing an article on the Civil War, and I have two books with facts that differ. How do I know which one is correct?

Paula: Okay, first—congratulations on noticing the discrepancy! That means you're taking your research seriously! It also means you're probably still in the early stages of your research because the more you learn about your subject, the better able you'll be to tell what's what. So go back to the library and dig into more of those primary sources. I think of nonfiction as an iceberg: The article is the visible tip, and the research is all that unseen supporting mass. The ratio for a real iceberg is about 1:7 and I think that may not be far off for writing, either!

Mel: SUPER illustration! Paula again: I'm writing historical fiction. What kind of research should I be doing? How does the approach differ from writing nonfiction?

Paula: Historical fiction needs to be accurate in tone, voice, language. It has to be authentic. The research here (you're gonna get tired of hearing me say "primary sources") is to read diaries, journals, newspapers of the period. Immerse yourself in the time you're writing about. You aren't necessarily looking for a lot of FACTS so much as a sense of the time and place, although of course you'll need facts about daily life (How did they heat their houses? What did they wear?, etc.) for authenticity.

Paula: I assume that's a Ladybug question. Our readers LOVE rebuses. We have quite a few on file already, so please don't flood me with a lot more just now. But as for how hard they are, study back issues of the magazine you're targeting. When I talk about market research at writers’ conferences, I do a "show and tell" of four different rebus formats in four different magazines. A Ladybug rebus is not a Highlights rebus, etc.

Paula: Did that answer the question?

Mel: Yes, thank you!

Heather: For Spider, they should be between 500 and 900 words.

Paula: Our guidelines are on the web site for all 15 Cricket Group magazines. You might want to bookmark it. I'll get the link and be back in a minute.

Mel: OK!

Heather: I'm going to say not really, and here's why: Although we do publish one nonfiction manuscript per issue, our overall goal is not to "educate" the readers; our goal is to entertain our readers, supply them with inspiration for creativity, instill a love of "fun" reading and reading in general. So Spider really doesn't publish many of those, simply because nonfiction poetry is too instructional in tone.

Mel: THANK YOU, Paula!

Paula: Let me chime in about the nonfiction poetry, too. It can work in Ladybug if you have a light touch. We recently accepted a cute little 8-line poem that shows the difference between a moth and a butterfly, but in a charming, whimsical way. It just can't be didactic! Rhyme can be naturally appealing to 2-, 3-, 4-year-olds.

Paula: Not right now, I'm afraid. I'll always read it, and we still accept outstanding pieces, but our poetry file is so full that it's about a four-year lapse from acceptance to publication. So we're being very conservative about accepting new pieces. Now, if you can do a poem that also offers an ACTIVITY, you increase your chances exponentially!

Heather: Cover letters are strange things. If you have a doctorate in, say, environmental biology, and you're submitting a piece on the vanishing wetlands, we definitely want to know. But (and this might sound silly) the things I look for in cover letters are quite simple: 1. Is the manuscript addressed to the right company? I couldn't tell you how many letters I've seen that tell me "I love Highlights magazine and my article is perfect for it!"

Paula: LOL!

Heather: I...uh...don't work for Highlights. 2. I check to see if there are spelling and grammatical errors. These two areas show me if an author is being careful or careless. And 3. For heaven's sake, do NOT tell an editor in a cover letter that you're submitting to her magazine because you love the magazine, or because every other publishing house has rejected your submissions. It sounds like a no-brainer, but this has actually happened!

Heather: Definitely at Spider!

Paula: Yes, on an age-appropriate level, at Babybug and Ladybug.

Paula: Almost all for Babybug and Ladybug.

Heather: For Spider, 100 percent, not for fiction, but definitely 100 percent for nonfiction.

Paula: The same as any other submission, name & contact info top-left, length top-right, title halfway down, centered, double spaced. Note that length is counted in words for prose, in lines for rhymes.

Paula: No, although it may feel like it to the writer! It can take several months for a manuscript to snake its way through the evaluation process, but then we make a decision: accept, reject, or request rewrite.

Heather: I believe so, but, Paula, you've submitted to them before. Can you handle this one?

Mel: Heather AND Paula: What do you want in a GOOD cover letter, if indeed you do WANT a cover letter?

Heather: I want to know if you're an expert, or if you've consulted one; but other than that, I don't need anything.

Paula: "Here's my manuscript." That’s all I need.

Heather: Not for Spider, at least.

Paula: Not for Babybug or Ladybug. Just your best work. :-)

Heather: Ditto.

Heather: Very rarely.

Paula: Sometimes in Ladybug, but we evaluate the manuscript first, before we look at the art.

Paula: All freelance, from artists all around the glove—excuse me, globe. :-)

Mel: I LIKE glove, too—it kind of fits! (-:}...

Heather: Illustrations are freelance with the exception of some nonfiction layouts being done by our in-house designers.

Paula: Those are photo layouts, right?

Heather: Yes, Paula. Thanks for the clarification.

Paula: Oh, humor is good!

Heather: Humor rocks! I love to see it in articles for Spider.

Paula: Heather, want to tell them about your turkey vulture?

Mel: YES, let's hear about the turkey vulture, for sure!

Heather: I had this excellent turkey vulture nonfiction piece. I believe it was October 2003. But the author had such a unique slant to it. She presented the information in a hysterical way: why the reader's mother wouldn't let him have a turkey vulture as a pet. It's priceless! :-)

Mel: I LOVE that, and the slant got it into print! One final question:

Paula: One most important thing, to me at least: an author who can WRITE! The topic may be perfect, the facts fascinating, but if the prose is wooden, it's not a Cricket piece.

Heather: I have to say that I completely agree with Paula. If it were wooden, it "wooden work."

Mel: Heather and Paula, you make time fly! Two hours have gone by on veritable wings. THANK YOU BOTH for all you've done for us tonight. When we think about submitting articles to Spider or Babybug or Ladybug—or all three—we will now be able to do it so much more knowledgeably. I've known a number of editors, but I have truly never known two who work together so complementarily as you two do, or who are close friends and exude that friendliness to all of us as you do. We will have many more questions in the future, I know. We have rarely had two guests in our ICL Chat Room at once, and NEVER two who were more effective. Could you two possibly return someday, separately or together again, please?

Heather: I'd love to, Mel! Thanks so much for having us here tonight. It's always a pleasure. :-)

Paula: Sure, Mel, you always ask so nicely!

Mel: Awww, you say the NICEST things! Next time in our Guest Chat Room, on February 17, two weeks from tonight, Carolyn Yoder will be with us to chat. Carolyn is Editor of the rather new historical book imprint of Highlights for Children Magazine, Calkins Creek Books. Some of you know Carolyn by having been in her workshops that teach how to write historical fiction and nonfiction; a few of you know Carolyn by having submitted manuscripts to her; many of you know her by reputation, as a very approachable editor, yet one who is very demanding of all submitted manuscripts. In this month of February we are focusing on nonfiction (Didn't George Washington say, "I cannot tell a lie"?), and Carolyn Yoder will continue our monthly theme in talking about nonfiction books next time, though she will surely be asked about historical fiction, as well. Can you plan to be here two weeks from tonight, February 17, when Carolyn Yoder will join us, and "join us to" Calkins Creek Books? I’ll hope to see you then!

Mel: Heather Delabre, THANK YOU to you for being here tonight, even at the time of complicated surgery for your father—we wish him well! Paula Morrow, THANK YOU for your steady wisdom for us who yearn to publish in the magazines you edit. And THANK YOU BOTH, my friends, for being SO approachable, ones of US here in the chat room, in the gentle, friendly and humorous manner which is part of your lives and your professional lives. We will be EAGER to have you back again, our friends!

Paula: Good night, all!

Heather: Thank you for your well-wishes, Mel. They're very appreciated! Good night, friends. :-)

Mel: Good Night, all CHILDREN, and CHILDREN'S WRITERS everywhere!

chris: How long does the first reading process take?

Paula: First readers receive manuscripts in one of those big 10-ream mimeograph paper boxes and are allowed up to two months to go through the box. If a manuscript is forwarded to the office for further consideration, each editor who reads it may take up to a month to get to it, although we try to be faster. When you start feeling impatient, just tell yourself that the longer your piece is gone, the more people must have liked it!

cherylann: What is good nonfiction to you, Paula?  

Paula: An original view of a fascinating subject, based on impeccable research using unimpeachable sources, presented with enthusiasm for the subject and respect for the reader.

wnns: Do you end up rejecting excellent work due to space?

Heather: I’m not sure if you mean space in our files or space in the magazine. If you mean the magazine, then, yes, we sometimes do reject excellent work that doesn’t conform to our word limits. We have only so many pages in the magazines for text, so it’s of the utmost importance for authors to pay attention the submissions guidelines. If you mean space in the files, it’s extremely rare for us to reject excellent work based on that alone. But if we’ve already published an article on a similar topic or we already have one on file, we’ll reject it. For instance, if you submitted the best darned article in the world about, say, tree frogs, and we already have a manuscript with that topic on file, then yes—we’d reject yours. And we don’t revisit nonfiction topics for at least five years, so read back issues.

sleepshade: Is it necessary to touch all five senses of our readers?  

Paula: Some subjects lend themselves to sensory treatment more than others do, but don’t neglect the senses if it’s possible to include them naturally. Can you imagine an article about skunk cabbages that failed to mention their unique odor, or one about chinchillas that didn’t acknowledge they have the softest fur known, or a bio of a singer that failed to describe her voice?

Dyett: Is it advisable for writers to give publishers All Rights? Selling All Rights, is that the way most writers get published? 

taram: Will the Cricket magazines ever consider buying less than All Rights? 

Maria: If I write an article and a magazine publishes it, but that article is the premise for a book idea, can I still write the book?  I am asking due to issues with rights. Or should I title the article and book differently?

Paula: I grouped these questions together because they indicate two things: beginning writers are extremely concerned about and also confused by rights. There is no one-size-fits-all rights policy. The key is to understand the resale potential of your own work. First, dyett, an all-rights contract purchases the EXACT ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS in the piece being published. The idea, the premise, the interpretation of facts, all those pages and pages of notes from your supporting research—those remain the property of the writer. A professional writer can research a topic, then write multiple articles highlighting different aspects or offering the information at different age levels or otherwise tailoring each article to a different market. She could sign an all-rights contract for every one of those articles, as long as they don’t repeat the same arrangement of words. (I’ve seen it done!)

lovebug: Shouldn’t you narrow your subject? For example, instead of writing about a cat, write about one aspect, like a cat’s whiskers?

Heather: In some cases, yes; in others, no. Sometimes a narrow focus can be too restrictive, and you’ll find yourself without enough information for an entire article. In other cases, though, you’ll find that a narrower focus will work to your advantage. For instance, I just asked for a revision on an article about dragonflies’ wings—how wings work, why they’re perfect for dragonflies’ bodies, how scientists determine the types of dragonflies based on their wing markings, etc.

Heather: Humor is a bonus most of the time, but it’s certainly not a necessity. And sometimes it’s downright inappropriate. For instance, if you were writing an article for Cricket on, say, the destructive force of tornadoes, you really wouldn’t want to make light of the death and destruction they cause. For a well written humor nonfiction piece, check out "Don’t Bring That Thing in Here!" by Mary Tarkowski in the October 2003 issue of Spider.

caq: If someone was rejected and made a few changes, could they possibly get a different off-site reader that would send it through the second time?

Heather: I want to first focus on the phrase "a few changes." If you mean superficial changes, such as adding some commas and tossing in a few well-placed adjectives and adverbs, the answer is a definitive NO. If a story is flat-out form rejected, superficial changes won’t help it. When a story needs only a few well-placed adjectives but is otherwise well written, we’d accept it from the get-go and ask the author to tweak a few areas.

dyett: How and where can we find critique groups?

Heather: SCBWI (The Society of Children’s Book Writers & Illustrators) has chapters all over the United States and even overseas, and every group I’ve had the opportunity to meet and/or do speaking engagements for has sponsored a critique group. Depending on where you live, you might even have several independent writers’ groups in your area already; check your local newspaper for ads. And your local librarian or independent bookseller is probably in touch with other writers in your area.

sleepshade: What do you usually do when you get manuscripts from teens?

writerx: What are the hot topics for your magazines in 2005 (for elementary readers)?

Heather: Every single issue for 2005 is already filled. In fact, we work eight months in advance of issue date, so the October 2005 illustrators are already being chosen for the stories and poems. For Spider (the elementary readers), I do a year’s worth of issue planning in one weekend. I’ll be planning the 2006 issues in March. But in answer to your question, there are no "hot topics" for our magazines. Our issues are thematically pieced together from the accepted manuscripts we have in our files. For the "bug magazines," we don’t have theme lists, nor do we commission work. We feel that the best writing comes from authors who are writing about a subject they’re interested in, not about a subject on which they’re asked to write.

lovebug: Should you have bibliographies for Babybug nonfiction?

sleepshade: How do you feel about footnotes in a manuscript?

Heather: Personally, I find them distracting. Use footnotes if you’re writing a dissertation, but there’s no need to use them if you’re writing a five-page article for a children’s publication. With that said, though, there might be publications that require footnotes. This requirement would likely be mentioned in the submission guidelines for those publications.

caq: If you have to do an interview by passing questions via e-mail to the university contact of the professor, and that contact passes the questions along and the answers are sent back to you, is that acceptable?

Heather: My first question here is: Why are you dealing with someone other than the professor? Have you called to request an e-mailed interview, or are you cold-e-mailing this person and reaching his or her secretary? And to whom is this contact passing the questions? To the professor? To a grad student? To a Teaching Assistant? Interviewing through intermediary parties is difficult and doesn’t always result in correct answers.

margieh: What kind of historical nonfiction would be appropriate to Ladybug and Spider?

Heather: For Spider, we try to avoid bloody war articles and other age-inappropriate pieces. We ran an entire series of nonfiction pieces in autumn of 2002 about the Lewis and Clark expedition. But pretty much all time periods and most topics will work. Just be sure that your information is age appropriate.

Mel: Heather, you probably see some not-so-well done nonfiction research and writing submitted to Spider. How does an editor respond to, well, shoddy research and writing?

Heather: Quite frankly, editors aren’t exactly happy when we receive manuscripts like the ones you described. To prepare for this Guest Chat, I looked through some manuscript reviews to find one that perfectly exemplifies this point, and—lo and behold!—I found MORE than one. But I want to give you a small window into an editor’s brain when she reviews a poorly researched and poorly written piece. This is what the review said: "Look at the bibliography, first of all; it’s laughable. This isn’t an article. This is a list of weird facts tossed together. The reader doesn’t even get to learn much about [the animals], which are totally cool creatures. Our readers would definitely be interested in [the animals], but certainly NOT in this poorly written format." And the second editor who reviewed it said this: "Aaargh! This is exactly what we’ve been griping about: the sources are all Web sites and encyclopedias. There’s no excuse for this kind of slipshod presentation."

Mel: Do you BOTH work together in the Cricket Family at times, Heather and Paula? 

Mel: Heather, what do you do in Spider that isn’t done/can’t be done in Babybug or Ladybug? And Paula, would you take the question in reverse after Heather, please?

Heather: The key here is age-appropriate material. For instance, there’s an article in the February issue of Spider about pack rats. Most Spider readers will have a general idea, at the very least, of what a desert is, but few Ladybug and no Babybug readers will know what a desert is. The Ladybug and Babybug readers are still trying to make sense of the world immediately around them. If they don’t live in a desert area, the article won’t make sense to them. We can delve more deeply into topics in Spider, and the sentence structure is more complex.

Mel: Is there anyone who is Editor-in-Chief or Editor-in-Charge of all the Cricket family?

Heather: Marianne Carus is our editor-in-chief, so she oversees the works, with specific supervisory control of Cricket and Cicada. The process is further broken down, though. Alice Letvin is the editorial director who supervises Babybug, Ladybug, Spider, Click, and Ask production. Lou Waryncia is the editorial director of all of the New Hampshire titles: Appleseeds, Dig, Cobblestone, Calliope, Footsteps, Odyssey, and Faces.

Paula: It certainly can’t hurt, and the person might catch a booboo or suggest something important that you’ve overlooked. Remember, though, that the expert may not understand child development and may make suggestions that are not appropriate to your audience; in that case, you’ll need to figure out how to handle the discrepancy. Remember, too, that the expert may be in a hurry and say "that’s fine" without examining the article carefully. As the author, you are the person ultimately responsible for the accuracy of what you write.

Paula: Well, first of all, you need to know enough about your subject that if you run into an unreliable Web site, you’ll have little red flags waving or alarm bells sounding in your brain. Consult a variety of sources and look for discrepancies that can’t be explained. When evaluating an individual Web site, find answers to questions such as: who are the author and the publisher? What are their credentials? (If it’s a .edu site, for example, is the actual author a professor? a student? the janitor?) How comprehensive is the coverage? Is the site impartial or does it emphasize paid links? What is the original date of the information? Has it been updated? How recently? (Some first-rate sites may have good, reliable information but lack the most recent advances in a field.) What is the historical context of the information? Can the information be verified through another reputable source?

Mel: Heather, what mistakes do you commonly see in nonfiction articles? Then Paula, what mistakes do YOU see?

Heather: I see "list articles," which aren’t actually articles at all; they’re just a list of facts strung together without a premise. I see wretched bibliographies. (See my comments above in this Guest Chat transcript for details on bibliographies.) And I see too many articles about common animals.

Paula: Writing that is not age-appropriate. Adult point of view. List of facts masquerading as an article. Pedestrian prose. Articles that are didactic, message-driven, encyclopedic, condescending, pessimistic, or in-your-face. Entire articles based on a single reference source. Whew, I sound grouchy!

Debby Vetter: For example, rather than a life cycle piece about some animal (ho-hum), it’s more interesting to explore a premise or theory or important question about that animal. Were dinosaurs warm-blooded? What are the reasons to think so? What are the reasons to think they weren’t? What can frogs tell us about the health of the environment? What can we learn from polar bears about adapting to cold temperatures? How do animals communicate? How has so-and-so worked with parrots to understand how their brains work? Paula got an interesting manuscript for little kids that she suggested the author revise for Cricket-age kids. It dealt with baby birds and how scientists studying their brain waves have learned that they "practice" bird songs in their sleep.

Mel: THANKS, Debby! Heather and Paula: What’s the difference between an age-appropriate piece and a piece that’s been dummied-down for children?

Heather: I see A LOT of this-is-what-my-adorable-kid-or-grandkid-did-last-week stories. These are completely inappropriate for children’s publications and usually end up being so terribly condescending that I could scream. And never begin a story with "Little Billy was so cute and sweet" or something similar. Children might be young, but that certainly doesn’t make them stupid. They know as well as we do that they have far more depth than that.

Paula: In a word: RESPECT. Dumbed down is condescending. Material can be simplified for a child without losing its essence. The piece should excite you as an author in order to maintain a genuine sense of enthusiasm and wonder.

Mel: How should nonfiction writers submit their manuscripts? Do they need to include a bibliography? What about photos or illustrations?

Heather: Format the actual document the same as you would a story: 1-inch margins, double-spaced, 12-point font. Always include a complete bibliography. Photos aren’t required but might be a nice complement to your piece. Avoid—at all costs—sending illustrations if you’re not an illustrator! We see a lot of amateurish illustrations.

Mel: Thank you, Heather Delabre, Paula Morrow, and Debby Vetter! You’ve gone waaaay beyond any call of duty, taking time out of your busy schedules, and enRICHed an already-RICH Guest Chat.