Thanks, Mark, for finally outing the anally retentive, would-be Paris Review editors who discard work that doesn't follow their font preferences, layout style, cover letter formatting and the list goes on. (I have no empirical evidence for this but my impression is that non-paying litmags run by MFA graduates are the worst culprits.) Your job as an editor is to find worthy writing and give it an audience. This sort of obsession with rules is what closes the doors on so many writers who have not had the benefit of a tertiary education and/or have English as a second language. Perhaps LitMag News could put together a list of publishers who are interested more in art than they are in saving a micro-second of their time. For instance, my formatting guidelines consist entirely of 'Use a readable font. Times New Roman 12 double spaced is a guideline.'
PS - A perfect example from 34 Orchard Road: "If your name is not on the actual document, we will send you a rejection letter without reading the work." As opposed to mags that will do the same if you do put your name on the doc. ;-)
Hi Becky! This is the essay I've been waiting for for my whole writing life! Thank you! This is a topic that's been on my mind a long time. I am instantly turned on/off by the tone of guidelines. I simply do not submit to any journal that has overly complicated, snarky, snobby, mean-spirited guidelines. I am always in a state of disbelief when they want to be addressed by their first names. In the past I've found myself deep in a website, searching for the first name of the editor, based on their snobby guidelines. At one point I stopped myself and just said, "No, I'm just not doing this ever again," and I haven't. Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. Sometimes, I look at guidelines and I just think, "You've got to be kidding me," and I just move on. On the flip side, I will submit to a journal solely based on their friendly, modest, inclusive tone.
I'm with you, Maggie. There are times when I find a lit mag I think might be appropriate for my work, but the guidelines are so atypical and demanding, I throw up my hands and move on. If guidelines are snarky or trying too hard to be cute/cleve/cool, I don't submit. I take my work seriously.
Most lit mags are fine with, “Dear Fiction Editor(s) of Threepenny Review,” or something of that nature in the salutation. They know editors change all the time and it’s hard to stay current with the masthead of every magazine.
I didn’t know not using the editors’ names was an automatic rejection for some. Just another reason good work can accrue so many rejections, that is, another reason that has nothing to do with the piece itself.
In his essay Mark Danowsky quotes editors he found in Duotrope interviews specifically saying that not addressing them by name is an automatic reject. This surprised me. These trigger-fingered editors are probably a small minority of the editorial population, and one can find intolerant and grudge-bearing individuals in any group, but it still surprised me that someone who wants to find good work to champion would so readily revile opportunities to discover it.
I have mixed feelings here, as a poet and an editor. Some of your points about having respect for contributors are well-taken. I couldn’t even request contributions for my previous publications because paying less than $0.10/word for commercial/journalistic writing is unethical. I love that I have talented writers willing to submit for my current venture, but publishing someone’s work for free (or in my case, for a pittance) comes with responsibilities. Writers should never give away full rights to their work, especially not just for the “privilege” of being a published, but unappreciated writer. No lit mag needs more than first serial rights, along with non-exclusive archival and digital, so that they can publish. If they can’t pay, they should show appreciation for contributors and their work.
On the other hand, while I agree with the curation approach when it comes to work previously published to social media accounts or blogs with small followings, it’s right for the author to remove it from their accounts or blogs, at least for the life of the issue in which they’ve assigned rights. That’s what first serial rights request and they’re a reasonable publishing standard. Also, some writers have so-called personal blogs with more viewers than most lit mags. And most lit mags also now have websites that are penalized by search engines for reprinting already-indexed material. They don’t care how small of a response the writer got. Sharing your work before publication is what writing groups are for. So, I guess it depends.
I also agree with you on responding to submissions, as long as they’re properly submitted. I do think some submission guidelines over-complicate things, but I also think that many writers employ the firehose approach to submissions. It may be effective for writers, but it shows that they don’t respect the individual editors that they are asking to publish their work. If the guidelines explicitly state that emailed (or Sir/Madam/To Whom It May Concern) submissions will be disregarded, pointing out that you didn’t know because you never bothered to read to the end of the publication’s guidelines isn’t a great defense. It’s a bit foolish, since you actually proved their point. It should be a learning experience, not a gripe.
I’ve never been so strict and I don’t solicit poetry, but is it really unreasonable to expect writers to show that they’ve read your guidelines if they’re asking for you to publish their work? I was sympathetic about your TPR debacle until you kindly admitted to not taking the time to read their guidelines that explicitly stated that what happened to you would happen. That’s why we use guidelines. Editors shouldn’t be jerks, but writers should act professionally if they want to be professionals. Reading and following directions is something most people learn early.
Well said, Aidan. Mark makes lots of excellent and reasonable points in his article, especially about response timeframes and simultaneous submissions. But I do tend to think that lit mag editors have the right to set their own submission guidelines. I don't actually find most of the given examples of guidelines all that onerous. And if a writer doesn't like the guidelines, submit somewhere else! But at any rate, a timely, thoughtful, well-written article ,Mark, and response, Aiden!
Well done, Mark, but that thing about simsubs? I received a submission for TheNewVerse.News today. I will post it on the site tomorrow. This is not atypical for us. Were I to allow simsubs, there’s no way I could have the confidence to work so quickly. We guarantee to respond to submitters within fourteen days and almost always get back to poets in less than a week. That’s not, I think, a disservice even though we don’t allow simsubs.
Fully agree in the case of NVN. I discourage sim subs for ONE ART because of the guaranteed quick turnaround time but, on principle, I say it's allowed.
James, I'm happy to follow a no simsubs request if the turnaround is that fast. But I can assure you, you and ONE ART are among a very few magazines (Threepenny Review is another quick responder that comes to mind) that promise anything less than a 120-day response. Ploughshares says 180, but about 51% of Duotrope reports say they took longer. I cannot imagine interviewing for a job where I was told, "We'll only see you for an interview if you promise us not to apply for jobs anywhere else until we get back to you. And by they way, we might take three months to call you back." I know that sounds like a ludicrous example, but I think it's fair for a writer to look at it that way.
Having published several times in NVN (thanks, James!), I always honor the policy and appreciate the quick response. If every journal were so prompt, there would be no reason to submit simultaneously.
As far as being rejected because of not using the editor's name, I've not wanted to assume that the editor on the masthead is the one reading the cover letter. I have no idea of the staffing situation at a journal. Also, editors who use the "Sir/Madam" construction as a reason not to read a submission are going to be automatically rejecting older writers and possibly nonnative speakers. Of course, that's no longer an appropriate salutation, but do you really want to reject the Grandma Moses of fiction because she's following rules she was taught her whole life?
Having secret rules is a lot easier than actually reading someone's work. This does give me more journals to add to my ever-growing "do not submit" list though.
Thank you for concerning yourself with Grandma Moses. LOL. I am an older writer and a retired English teacher, as well. Those old rules are ingrained. I will admit, however, that one of the things I learned from this article is that I might need to search for the poetry editor's name before I submit a batch of poems.
“Doesn’t fit our needs right now” begs the question “so what are your needs right now?” which, of course, editors will never answer. I received a rejection from a children’s magazine that said my submission was “clever, hilarious, and highly imaginative” but “not quite right for us at this time.” I mean, if they’re not looking for ‘clever, hilarious and highly imaginative at this time,’ what on earth are they looking for—and when?!
"At this time" is a poorly chosen and tired turn of phrase. It's not what editors actually mean. They never want to see those same pieces again. Not unless they have specifically told you otherwise (or, on the off chance, you've done a massive overhaul to the extent that the original has almost nothing in common with the new version).
"Fit" is legit. Not all work fits with a journal's aesthetic. I pass on a decent amount of work that is technically "good" or has other positive qualities, but is not what I enjoy and not what I want to share with the ONE ART poetry community.
I think what might be worse, but encouraging nonetheless, is the declination that reads, "We loved these poems, especially ABCDE, but they're not a fit for our journal at this time." At least it's nice to know I brought momentary joy to another person.
This is interesting and I worry about it. I'm increasingly careful about naming poems that I liked from a submission because, I think, it's easy to create a false sense of a pattern. Poems are rarely alike... Each poem is often very much it's own standalone entity. As a poet/writer, I like hearing which poem was liked best in a submission, too; however, over time I've placed less stock in what this might mean...
One of the most interesting rejections I received said, "We cannot find a place for this." Hmmm . . . is this a request for assistance? I could help! I think right there on page one or even there on the last page. That's fine too.
Donna, let me translate "does not fit our needs right now."
Issues are curated - - not unlike a MENU for an exclusive dinner party.
EX: the EIC of Amsterdam Quarterly shared a personal reason for his rejection of my poems about being the sole caretaker of my cancer-stricken mother.
Bryan Monte had received poems about cancer from me and from another poet and said he had to choose between them; he went with a first-person perspective from a poet who had recovered from breast cancer.
Naturally, I appreciated hearing his reasons - - and understood why an editor did not want to include TWO cancer poems, even though he liked both.
EIC Bryan Monte was also the first person I told when my WIP "Cancer Courts My Mother" was accepted by a university press.
Frankly, why must editors tell you what their needs are right now? Are you on staff?
Writers can operate from an "abundance mindset" or a "scarcity mindset."
The "abundance mindset" assures you that good writing will find a good home and frees you to go on about your day with a smile.
Thanks for this, LindaAnn. Of course, there is always more than one possible translation for an unexplained statement. I agree that editors don’t have to explain themselves and they might indeed be constructing a menu, or—and I am sure that this happens too--they are including an easy, much-used phrase in a form letter without it meaning very much at all. Ultimately, any form letter is simply a convenience.
Yes, there are many translations and numerous explanations.
Or not really a good enough reason - - just luck.
But just as with menu planning, an editor tries to assemble items that "go together."
I prefer to believe (unless told otherwise) they enjoyed my piece but it did not fit the menu.
Maybe my poem was a lasagna course and they were going for Asian fusion or Bolivian fantasy.
And I know my colleagues here are very particular about the exact wording of rejection notes - - but I'd prefer to receive one that doesn't congratulate me for my "courage," doesn't shake the "keep on writing" pom-poms in my face, doesn't salute the hundreds of "excellent" submissions that poured in . . . but just says three clear words: NOT THIS TIME - - the editors.
As one myself, I think writers get over-sensitive on this matter. There are a dozen reasons why a piece isn't accepted by an editor. Forget the need for sugar-coating. A simple 'Thank you for your submission to ArtyFarty Mag. We won't be using it but we wish you well in placing it elsewhere.'
I don't much care how the rejection is worded. I understand that as an editor builds an issue, that editor has a vision in mind as to what the form and content should be, and that however good my submission might be, if it doesn't fit that vision the editor is not going to accept it. So chance plays a big part in getting accepted, it means your work reached the right editor at the right time as the issue was being built.
Passing at this time suggests another time is better. If that's the case, ask for the writer to resubmit. I get that it's a way to soften the blow, and indicates "we sort of like it" so for some writers it's probably somewhat encouraging.
I understand what you mean, but this is how submissions/pitches are declined by professional editors. “Passing” on a submission says, “We don’t dislike your work, but this particular submission doesn’t fit our needs right now.” Declining or discouraging an author would mean something else entirely. I do think editors should be more careful about their language, though. The “right now” part is more not wanting the potential contributor to think I wouldn’t be interested in other work. I won’t rudely decline anyone, but I also won’t encourage an author who clearly won’t be accepted in the future.
Yes, that makes sense. Certainly, declining a pitch, especially for non-fiction, with "not at this time" is appropriate. From what I'm seeing, submitting exclusively short fiction, is that it's becoming a standard form reject line, even if one has submitted something specifically for an upcoming issue's theme.
Thanks for this, Mark. Currently, I’ve been waiting almost double a magazine’s postulated response time for a decision on my submission. They have a twitter/X account. What I don’t understand is why they can’t just post a single tweet to explain that they’re swamped, if that’s the problem. Silence in the face of delay is especially egregious when editors are writers themselves. If they don’t know from experience what it’s like to face silence…well…they’re supposed to have imaginations!
I've got three stories that are in this situation. I've emailed, then I tried the message thingy vis Submittable. Honestly, I'll probably won't waste my time with those three places in the future.
Well said and well written, Mark, although I don't consider "decline" easier to swallow (much less more polite) than "rejection". As for researching every lit mag's editor-in-chief so I can address them in my cover letter--wow, how egotistical is that? And why require a cover letter at all? Most lit mags don't want to know whose poetry they're reading beforehand. And if, as you wrote, the cover letter is to determine if the submitter read the guidelines, I say--omg, are we still in high school? Thank you for giving us a thought provoking essay--I only hope editors find it makes them think twice, too.
how about, "We can't use your poems/essay/story at this time." I really appreciated one editor's (rejection) response, "please consider submitting to us again in the future."
Speaking as a relatively new magazine: a very large proportion of authors don't actually follow the guidelines anyway. (It doesn't matter, though, because we won't reject a piece for being in something other than our preferred format.)
Hong Kong Writers Circle: Can you please explain why you require Shunn manuscript style - - why you need a writer's full mailing address + a phone number?
We are all curious about this Shunn-fetish that many zines hold onto.
It's precisely because the Shunn-fetish is so widespread that we also indulged :)
To wit: we said Shunn because we thought authors would very likely already have their manuscript in that format, and wouldn't have to put it into a special format just for us.
To be honest, the inclusion of the full mailing address & phone number is not something we even thought about! We just wanted some kind of contact details.
As an author, what do you think would work better? Should we say, "... follow Shunn or something similar, as long as it's not in some unreadable font and your contact details are in there" perhaps?
I followed your link and see "Follow the classic manuscript format, or anything else readable. We don’t care if you include your name and contact on the document itself, but do include it somewhere (since we will need to know what name to publish under)."
I'm very grateful (even though I haven't submitted and just found your mag) that you modified it based on feedback. That says a lot and I respect that.
I detest Shunn format (though I respect the work that Shunn put into it) and find it stressful enough that it can make me not want to submit. But what upsets me is a magazine that requires my physical address and phone number before they actually need my physical address and phone number, if they ever actually need it. (In your case I would interpret "contact information" as an email at time of submission.)
I've done so in the past, but I've started noting that I will provide it if it becomes necessary, I will make exceptions, but also I sometimes refrain from submitting, so I greatly appreciate a magazine that gives clear indication of what is and isn't necessary in regards to Shunn.
Thanks for the comment (good point that "contact details" is ambiguous). We'll update the guidance accordingly.
We do everything by email because we're in Hong Kong and our readers & authors are all over the world. Perhaps magazines who have a print version need the physical address of the author in order to send them a copy?
Agreed. I think it's primarily print journals that want addresses. Some journals also send mailers. It's a bit of a vestige from previous times when snail mail submissions were the norm and you'd have to include an SASE (self-addressed stamped envelope) in order to receive your submission response.
Less is more. For ex: "Please use 12-pt Times Roman or a similar font. Avoid a sans-serif font. Double space the manuscript unless it's poetry. Include your name and email in the header. Thank you."
It means that you don't have to sign up as a member to submit, but if your piece is accepted, we ask you to sign up as a member (memberships last one year).
As to Shunn's Standard Manuscript format, it's pretty much the gold standard for genre editors (of speculative and horror publications) - - and so I've learned to use it.
However, I really wonder what is the old-fashioned need for all that information?
Years ago, an editor needed your full mailing address because that's how you'd be paid (via a check sent in the mail). In 2023, the only zine who mailed a check to my house was Leading Edge (Brigham Young Univ.); everyone else sent my payment digitally.
And raise your hand if you really need my telephone number in the upper left corner.
Holding tight to Shunn style when you, as an editor, will not avail yourself of the information, makes me wonder about the reason.
But maybe those picky submission guidelines could be more transparent: why you require my full mailing address even though you neither send me a copy of your printed journal nor an actual check; why I must send a .doc vs a .docx; why Garamond 11 pt is essential to your well-being instead of TNR 12 pt; and why you required an audio file - - since you did not use it after all.
We, The Editors, are willing (more or less) to give your submission a cursory glance.
First, though, you have to bake us a cake.
It must be a chocolate cake with strawberry frosting. We love strawberry!
Please sprinkle the cake with white chocolate jazzies. We love those little guys! Don't you?
Send the cake via FedEx, UPS or DHL. The postal service would certainly crush our cake and we don't want a crushed cake. We require a cake that will be ready to eat upon arrival.
You are responsible, of course, for paying the full cost of making the cake and assuring that it reaches us intact.
I think you covered everything, Mark! I've gone through some hoops with very very complicated guidelines, but I'll forgive the editors, they accepted the story, lol! One thing I would add. It has to do with the pace of online publishing. I wish more online journals would accept reprints. I mean what are the odds that a story published online (for free, to boot), four years ago, would be known/remembered by the readers? Most online stories vanish in the haze after two weeks, and that's generous. Why be snooty about giving the tales another run in the sunlight, providing first publication is mentioned, of course.
Beautiful! There are mags I don't bother with because the guidelines are labyrinthine. And, life is too short to have work tied up for a year. Both writers and editors would be well-served by treating one another as human beings.
Thank you for this well thought out article. I have been working with editors, both paid and volunteer for three decades now, and your words give me a lot to think about.
Good piece and I enjoyed it. I would add that if your journal charges a reading fee that you put that at the top of your guidelines rather than burying it at the end or on the Submittable page. It'll save everyone time. And I'm finding that, unlike the old days of snail mail submissions, virtually everyone accepts sim subs.
Thanks, Mark, for finally outing the anally retentive, would-be Paris Review editors who discard work that doesn't follow their font preferences, layout style, cover letter formatting and the list goes on. (I have no empirical evidence for this but my impression is that non-paying litmags run by MFA graduates are the worst culprits.) Your job as an editor is to find worthy writing and give it an audience. This sort of obsession with rules is what closes the doors on so many writers who have not had the benefit of a tertiary education and/or have English as a second language. Perhaps LitMag News could put together a list of publishers who are interested more in art than they are in saving a micro-second of their time. For instance, my formatting guidelines consist entirely of 'Use a readable font. Times New Roman 12 double spaced is a guideline.'
PS - A perfect example from 34 Orchard Road: "If your name is not on the actual document, we will send you a rejection letter without reading the work." As opposed to mags that will do the same if you do put your name on the doc. ;-)
Hi Becky! This is the essay I've been waiting for for my whole writing life! Thank you! This is a topic that's been on my mind a long time. I am instantly turned on/off by the tone of guidelines. I simply do not submit to any journal that has overly complicated, snarky, snobby, mean-spirited guidelines. I am always in a state of disbelief when they want to be addressed by their first names. In the past I've found myself deep in a website, searching for the first name of the editor, based on their snobby guidelines. At one point I stopped myself and just said, "No, I'm just not doing this ever again," and I haven't. Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. Sometimes, I look at guidelines and I just think, "You've got to be kidding me," and I just move on. On the flip side, I will submit to a journal solely based on their friendly, modest, inclusive tone.
Thanks again for the work you do!
Maggie
I'm with you, Maggie. There are times when I find a lit mag I think might be appropriate for my work, but the guidelines are so atypical and demanding, I throw up my hands and move on. If guidelines are snarky or trying too hard to be cute/cleve/cool, I don't submit. I take my work seriously.
Most lit mags are fine with, “Dear Fiction Editor(s) of Threepenny Review,” or something of that nature in the salutation. They know editors change all the time and it’s hard to stay current with the masthead of every magazine.
I didn’t know not using the editors’ names was an automatic rejection for some. Just another reason good work can accrue so many rejections, that is, another reason that has nothing to do with the piece itself.
In my experience, not using the editor's name is NOT an automatic rejection.
In his essay Mark Danowsky quotes editors he found in Duotrope interviews specifically saying that not addressing them by name is an automatic reject. This surprised me. These trigger-fingered editors are probably a small minority of the editorial population, and one can find intolerant and grudge-bearing individuals in any group, but it still surprised me that someone who wants to find good work to champion would so readily revile opportunities to discover it.
I have mixed feelings here, as a poet and an editor. Some of your points about having respect for contributors are well-taken. I couldn’t even request contributions for my previous publications because paying less than $0.10/word for commercial/journalistic writing is unethical. I love that I have talented writers willing to submit for my current venture, but publishing someone’s work for free (or in my case, for a pittance) comes with responsibilities. Writers should never give away full rights to their work, especially not just for the “privilege” of being a published, but unappreciated writer. No lit mag needs more than first serial rights, along with non-exclusive archival and digital, so that they can publish. If they can’t pay, they should show appreciation for contributors and their work.
On the other hand, while I agree with the curation approach when it comes to work previously published to social media accounts or blogs with small followings, it’s right for the author to remove it from their accounts or blogs, at least for the life of the issue in which they’ve assigned rights. That’s what first serial rights request and they’re a reasonable publishing standard. Also, some writers have so-called personal blogs with more viewers than most lit mags. And most lit mags also now have websites that are penalized by search engines for reprinting already-indexed material. They don’t care how small of a response the writer got. Sharing your work before publication is what writing groups are for. So, I guess it depends.
I also agree with you on responding to submissions, as long as they’re properly submitted. I do think some submission guidelines over-complicate things, but I also think that many writers employ the firehose approach to submissions. It may be effective for writers, but it shows that they don’t respect the individual editors that they are asking to publish their work. If the guidelines explicitly state that emailed (or Sir/Madam/To Whom It May Concern) submissions will be disregarded, pointing out that you didn’t know because you never bothered to read to the end of the publication’s guidelines isn’t a great defense. It’s a bit foolish, since you actually proved their point. It should be a learning experience, not a gripe.
I’ve never been so strict and I don’t solicit poetry, but is it really unreasonable to expect writers to show that they’ve read your guidelines if they’re asking for you to publish their work? I was sympathetic about your TPR debacle until you kindly admitted to not taking the time to read their guidelines that explicitly stated that what happened to you would happen. That’s why we use guidelines. Editors shouldn’t be jerks, but writers should act professionally if they want to be professionals. Reading and following directions is something most people learn early.
Well said, Aidan. Mark makes lots of excellent and reasonable points in his article, especially about response timeframes and simultaneous submissions. But I do tend to think that lit mag editors have the right to set their own submission guidelines. I don't actually find most of the given examples of guidelines all that onerous. And if a writer doesn't like the guidelines, submit somewhere else! But at any rate, a timely, thoughtful, well-written article ,Mark, and response, Aiden!
Well done, Mark, but that thing about simsubs? I received a submission for TheNewVerse.News today. I will post it on the site tomorrow. This is not atypical for us. Were I to allow simsubs, there’s no way I could have the confidence to work so quickly. We guarantee to respond to submitters within fourteen days and almost always get back to poets in less than a week. That’s not, I think, a disservice even though we don’t allow simsubs.
Fully agree in the case of NVN. I discourage sim subs for ONE ART because of the guaranteed quick turnaround time but, on principle, I say it's allowed.
James, I'm happy to follow a no simsubs request if the turnaround is that fast. But I can assure you, you and ONE ART are among a very few magazines (Threepenny Review is another quick responder that comes to mind) that promise anything less than a 120-day response. Ploughshares says 180, but about 51% of Duotrope reports say they took longer. I cannot imagine interviewing for a job where I was told, "We'll only see you for an interview if you promise us not to apply for jobs anywhere else until we get back to you. And by they way, we might take three months to call you back." I know that sounds like a ludicrous example, but I think it's fair for a writer to look at it that way.
You folks are definitely the exception.
As a writer and submitter, I couldn’t agree with you more!
Having published several times in NVN (thanks, James!), I always honor the policy and appreciate the quick response. If every journal were so prompt, there would be no reason to submit simultaneously.
As far as being rejected because of not using the editor's name, I've not wanted to assume that the editor on the masthead is the one reading the cover letter. I have no idea of the staffing situation at a journal. Also, editors who use the "Sir/Madam" construction as a reason not to read a submission are going to be automatically rejecting older writers and possibly nonnative speakers. Of course, that's no longer an appropriate salutation, but do you really want to reject the Grandma Moses of fiction because she's following rules she was taught her whole life?
Having secret rules is a lot easier than actually reading someone's work. This does give me more journals to add to my ever-growing "do not submit" list though.
Thank you for concerning yourself with Grandma Moses. LOL. I am an older writer and a retired English teacher, as well. Those old rules are ingrained. I will admit, however, that one of the things I learned from this article is that I might need to search for the poetry editor's name before I submit a batch of poems.
And I loathe the expression "We're passing on your submission." What, my poetry is a gallstone?
Ha, ok, that was funny
I loathe the "we pass" response as well. It feels dismissive. I much prefer "doesn't meet the needs of our magazine (or the current issue)."
My preference too, but I am not offended by "we pass."
How we respond to rejection wording probably depends on our own rejection expreiences.
Funny. I go the other way. I find the “meet our needs” language condescending, whereas anyone can pass on an opportunity.
Possibly the dismissive tone is a feature rather than bug of the response.
Oh, I definitely think it's a feature.
What's worse... "we're passing at this time." Really? Not forever? Because that's what it feels like, boss.
“Doesn’t fit our needs right now” begs the question “so what are your needs right now?” which, of course, editors will never answer. I received a rejection from a children’s magazine that said my submission was “clever, hilarious, and highly imaginative” but “not quite right for us at this time.” I mean, if they’re not looking for ‘clever, hilarious and highly imaginative at this time,’ what on earth are they looking for—and when?!
"At this time" is a poorly chosen and tired turn of phrase. It's not what editors actually mean. They never want to see those same pieces again. Not unless they have specifically told you otherwise (or, on the off chance, you've done a massive overhaul to the extent that the original has almost nothing in common with the new version).
"Fit" is legit. Not all work fits with a journal's aesthetic. I pass on a decent amount of work that is technically "good" or has other positive qualities, but is not what I enjoy and not what I want to share with the ONE ART poetry community.
I think what might be worse, but encouraging nonetheless, is the declination that reads, "We loved these poems, especially ABCDE, but they're not a fit for our journal at this time." At least it's nice to know I brought momentary joy to another person.
I track the "we loved this" responses, with the hope that eventually a pattern emerges that can inform future submissions.
This is interesting and I worry about it. I'm increasingly careful about naming poems that I liked from a submission because, I think, it's easy to create a false sense of a pattern. Poems are rarely alike... Each poem is often very much it's own standalone entity. As a poet/writer, I like hearing which poem was liked best in a submission, too; however, over time I've placed less stock in what this might mean...
One of the most interesting rejections I received said, "We cannot find a place for this." Hmmm . . . is this a request for assistance? I could help! I think right there on page one or even there on the last page. That's fine too.
Lol
Donna, let me translate "does not fit our needs right now."
Issues are curated - - not unlike a MENU for an exclusive dinner party.
EX: the EIC of Amsterdam Quarterly shared a personal reason for his rejection of my poems about being the sole caretaker of my cancer-stricken mother.
Bryan Monte had received poems about cancer from me and from another poet and said he had to choose between them; he went with a first-person perspective from a poet who had recovered from breast cancer.
Naturally, I appreciated hearing his reasons - - and understood why an editor did not want to include TWO cancer poems, even though he liked both.
EIC Bryan Monte was also the first person I told when my WIP "Cancer Courts My Mother" was accepted by a university press.
Frankly, why must editors tell you what their needs are right now? Are you on staff?
Writers can operate from an "abundance mindset" or a "scarcity mindset."
The "abundance mindset" assures you that good writing will find a good home and frees you to go on about your day with a smile.
Leave the MENU planning to the zine staff.
Thanks for this, LindaAnn. Of course, there is always more than one possible translation for an unexplained statement. I agree that editors don’t have to explain themselves and they might indeed be constructing a menu, or—and I am sure that this happens too--they are including an easy, much-used phrase in a form letter without it meaning very much at all. Ultimately, any form letter is simply a convenience.
Yes, there are many translations and numerous explanations.
Or not really a good enough reason - - just luck.
But just as with menu planning, an editor tries to assemble items that "go together."
I prefer to believe (unless told otherwise) they enjoyed my piece but it did not fit the menu.
Maybe my poem was a lasagna course and they were going for Asian fusion or Bolivian fantasy.
And I know my colleagues here are very particular about the exact wording of rejection notes - - but I'd prefer to receive one that doesn't congratulate me for my "courage," doesn't shake the "keep on writing" pom-poms in my face, doesn't salute the hundreds of "excellent" submissions that poured in . . . but just says three clear words: NOT THIS TIME - - the editors.
Linda Ann, I like your abundance mindset comment.
And just for fun, with a hat-tip to ”Pity the Downtrodden Landlord” and a joyful disregard for perfect rhythm:
Oh pity the form-letter-writers
Their backs all word-weary and bent
Respect their intention, refrain from dissension
Never ask them to say what they meant
You won the internet, Donna! LOL
Suggestion for better language?
As one myself, I think writers get over-sensitive on this matter. There are a dozen reasons why a piece isn't accepted by an editor. Forget the need for sugar-coating. A simple 'Thank you for your submission to ArtyFarty Mag. We won't be using it but we wish you well in placing it elsewhere.'
For me the ideal rejection is: "Not this time."
I don't much care how the rejection is worded. I understand that as an editor builds an issue, that editor has a vision in mind as to what the form and content should be, and that however good my submission might be, if it doesn't fit that vision the editor is not going to accept it. So chance plays a big part in getting accepted, it means your work reached the right editor at the right time as the issue was being built.
Passing at this time suggests another time is better. If that's the case, ask for the writer to resubmit. I get that it's a way to soften the blow, and indicates "we sort of like it" so for some writers it's probably somewhat encouraging.
I understand what you mean, but this is how submissions/pitches are declined by professional editors. “Passing” on a submission says, “We don’t dislike your work, but this particular submission doesn’t fit our needs right now.” Declining or discouraging an author would mean something else entirely. I do think editors should be more careful about their language, though. The “right now” part is more not wanting the potential contributor to think I wouldn’t be interested in other work. I won’t rudely decline anyone, but I also won’t encourage an author who clearly won’t be accepted in the future.
Yes, that makes sense. Certainly, declining a pitch, especially for non-fiction, with "not at this time" is appropriate. From what I'm seeing, submitting exclusively short fiction, is that it's becoming a standard form reject line, even if one has submitted something specifically for an upcoming issue's theme.
Thanks for this, Mark. Currently, I’ve been waiting almost double a magazine’s postulated response time for a decision on my submission. They have a twitter/X account. What I don’t understand is why they can’t just post a single tweet to explain that they’re swamped, if that’s the problem. Silence in the face of delay is especially egregious when editors are writers themselves. If they don’t know from experience what it’s like to face silence…well…they’re supposed to have imaginations!
YES! When the magazine has a Submittable account, a website AND a Facebook account they should be checking them regularly and responding to inquiries.
I've got three stories that are in this situation. I've emailed, then I tried the message thingy vis Submittable. Honestly, I'll probably won't waste my time with those three places in the future.
Well said and well written, Mark, although I don't consider "decline" easier to swallow (much less more polite) than "rejection". As for researching every lit mag's editor-in-chief so I can address them in my cover letter--wow, how egotistical is that? And why require a cover letter at all? Most lit mags don't want to know whose poetry they're reading beforehand. And if, as you wrote, the cover letter is to determine if the submitter read the guidelines, I say--omg, are we still in high school? Thank you for giving us a thought provoking essay--I only hope editors find it makes them think twice, too.
The overall cultural trend is in the direction of making processes faster and simpler.
Yet lit mags hold out for hierarchy and hermeticism.
How much longer can these often-obscure publications swim against the current?
Suggestion for better language?
how about, "We can't use your poems/essay/story at this time." I really appreciated one editor's (rejection) response, "please consider submitting to us again in the future."
Speaking as a relatively new magazine: a very large proportion of authors don't actually follow the guidelines anyway. (It doesn't matter, though, because we won't reject a piece for being in something other than our preferred format.)
Having said that, we'd love to receive comments / complaints / compliments / critiques of our guidelines! You can find them here: https://hkwcmagazine.substack.com/p/submissions
P.S. We are open for submissions from now until January 31 :)
Hong Kong Writers Circle: Can you please explain why you require Shunn manuscript style - - why you need a writer's full mailing address + a phone number?
We are all curious about this Shunn-fetish that many zines hold onto.
Thank you very much.
It's precisely because the Shunn-fetish is so widespread that we also indulged :)
To wit: we said Shunn because we thought authors would very likely already have their manuscript in that format, and wouldn't have to put it into a special format just for us.
To be honest, the inclusion of the full mailing address & phone number is not something we even thought about! We just wanted some kind of contact details.
As an author, what do you think would work better? Should we say, "... follow Shunn or something similar, as long as it's not in some unreadable font and your contact details are in there" perhaps?
I followed your link and see "Follow the classic manuscript format, or anything else readable. We don’t care if you include your name and contact on the document itself, but do include it somewhere (since we will need to know what name to publish under)."
I'm very grateful (even though I haven't submitted and just found your mag) that you modified it based on feedback. That says a lot and I respect that.
I detest Shunn format (though I respect the work that Shunn put into it) and find it stressful enough that it can make me not want to submit. But what upsets me is a magazine that requires my physical address and phone number before they actually need my physical address and phone number, if they ever actually need it. (In your case I would interpret "contact information" as an email at time of submission.)
I've done so in the past, but I've started noting that I will provide it if it becomes necessary, I will make exceptions, but also I sometimes refrain from submitting, so I greatly appreciate a magazine that gives clear indication of what is and isn't necessary in regards to Shunn.
Thanks for the comment (good point that "contact details" is ambiguous). We'll update the guidance accordingly.
We do everything by email because we're in Hong Kong and our readers & authors are all over the world. Perhaps magazines who have a print version need the physical address of the author in order to send them a copy?
Agreed. I think it's primarily print journals that want addresses. Some journals also send mailers. It's a bit of a vestige from previous times when snail mail submissions were the norm and you'd have to include an SASE (self-addressed stamped envelope) in order to receive your submission response.
Thank you for the reply.
Less is more. For ex: "Please use 12-pt Times Roman or a similar font. Avoid a sans-serif font. Double space the manuscript unless it's poetry. Include your name and email in the header. Thank you."
“Anyone can submit” but only members will be published? What is the point of submitting without the possibility of publication?
It means that you don't have to sign up as a member to submit, but if your piece is accepted, we ask you to sign up as a member (memberships last one year).
As to Shunn's Standard Manuscript format, it's pretty much the gold standard for genre editors (of speculative and horror publications) - - and so I've learned to use it.
However, I really wonder what is the old-fashioned need for all that information?
Years ago, an editor needed your full mailing address because that's how you'd be paid (via a check sent in the mail). In 2023, the only zine who mailed a check to my house was Leading Edge (Brigham Young Univ.); everyone else sent my payment digitally.
And raise your hand if you really need my telephone number in the upper left corner.
Holding tight to Shunn style when you, as an editor, will not avail yourself of the information, makes me wonder about the reason.
But maybe those picky submission guidelines could be more transparent: why you require my full mailing address even though you neither send me a copy of your printed journal nor an actual check; why I must send a .doc vs a .docx; why Garamond 11 pt is essential to your well-being instead of TNR 12 pt; and why you required an audio file - - since you did not use it after all.
Thanks for listening. :-)
Well aware of the long-held guidelines for genre. It was an early point of frustration back in the day when I was submitting [terrible] fiction.
Giving out my address has always made me uncomfortable. There are obvious reasons why many would be reluctant to do so.
Mark, what I have started to do is simply list my city and state.
I still don't understand the demand for a postal address [Shunn manuscript style] - - unless the editor plans to put a check in the mail.
Even if that were the case, I could always furnish my information AFTER the acceptance, right?
Completely agree!
If they want that much info when all I'm doing is submitting? HARD PASS, nope.
Solution: stay away from GENRE zines (where Shunn style is the standard).
It is a holdover from the pulp magazine era - - when all SFF authors were paid by a check mailed by post to the address typed on the manuscript.
Now the same genre magazines will pay us via PayPal although they preserve the tradition of William Shunn's format.
"Dear writer,
We, The Editors, are willing (more or less) to give your submission a cursory glance.
First, though, you have to bake us a cake.
It must be a chocolate cake with strawberry frosting. We love strawberry!
Please sprinkle the cake with white chocolate jazzies. We love those little guys! Don't you?
Send the cake via FedEx, UPS or DHL. The postal service would certainly crush our cake and we don't want a crushed cake. We require a cake that will be ready to eat upon arrival.
You are responsible, of course, for paying the full cost of making the cake and assuring that it reaches us intact.
We can hardly wait!
Yours in literature,
The Editors"
I think you covered everything, Mark! I've gone through some hoops with very very complicated guidelines, but I'll forgive the editors, they accepted the story, lol! One thing I would add. It has to do with the pace of online publishing. I wish more online journals would accept reprints. I mean what are the odds that a story published online (for free, to boot), four years ago, would be known/remembered by the readers? Most online stories vanish in the haze after two weeks, and that's generous. Why be snooty about giving the tales another run in the sunlight, providing first publication is mentioned, of course.
I wish all lit mags would read this and follow. Excellent. Thank you.
Beautiful! There are mags I don't bother with because the guidelines are labyrinthine. And, life is too short to have work tied up for a year. Both writers and editors would be well-served by treating one another as human beings.
Thank you for this well thought out article. I have been working with editors, both paid and volunteer for three decades now, and your words give me a lot to think about.
Good piece and I enjoyed it. I would add that if your journal charges a reading fee that you put that at the top of your guidelines rather than burying it at the end or on the Submittable page. It'll save everyone time. And I'm finding that, unlike the old days of snail mail submissions, virtually everyone accepts sim subs.