Editors respond to Atticus Review & NFTS; lying in your cover letter; behind-the-scenes with editors; defining writer success; poetry book stats; a billion-trillion calls for submissions; and more
I've been published in multiple top-tier magazines, but mostly in the pre-Internet age, as part of a previous career. That means that if some suspicious editor decided to look me up at NYtimes.com, etc., they might not find me and conclude that I am a liar! (I've even had to ask my library's reference experts to track down some of my long-ago publications when I couldn't put my hands on the original.)
TBH as an editor myself, the last sentence of that quote sounds like grumpy editorial kayfabe to discourage dishonest submitters (the perpetrating takes way less effort than the policing). Omitted above: “We consider every submission based on its own merit, not what the writer has published or come close with previously. Same goes for phony credits.”
I dig sometimes after I read a packet but haven’t changed my Submittable vote/comment as a result.
As a previous Editor-in-Chief of Atticus Review, I have a little inside info. The magazine has gone back and forth over the years between the original publisher (Dan) and the new owner (David), who is a big tech person (though seemingly 3-4 years out of date). Though I never worked with David, my impression was that he was very interested in monetizing AR. My question for AR is if they charge $ for submissions and then pay writers with NFTs.
I've been minting most of my poems as NFTs before publishing them or posting them anywhere for several years now, as a way of proving that I am the author of the poem. The reason this works is that 1) the wallet address and mint date on the blockchain cannot be modified in any way due to the use of cryptography in maintaining the blockchain, and 2) I am the only person that can open the wallet - again due to the use of cryptography in the way wallets function. If anyone else copies my poem and then claims it as their own, I should be able to use those facts to prove that I am the actual author and that my mint occurred at a point in time before the copy made its appearance. This SHOULD be a boon for publications, as it would simplify their having to check poems for plagiarism - but that would only work if the author submits their poem as an already-minted NFT. Unfortunately, Atticus Review negates this benefit by accepting the text poem from the author and then minting it themselves.
As the editor of a small lit mag, I'm wondering if anyone has any advice for being included in those submission call round-up type articles? Do I need to be reaching out to the list-makers directly? Promoting more on social media? Social Media work is my least favorite part of running a magazine, but I want to make sure I'm getting the word out about our open submission window as best as I can.
Not being on top of the masthead, I don’t have a lot of experience with this, but I got Variant Lit onto Erika Dreifus’s flash nonfiction list by emailing (note her inclusion criteria though), and I gather that Sub Club is pulling from Chill Subs data, in which you should be able to get a listing. (Duotrope has a list too, which goes out to their subscribers; email them for a listing.)
Thank you for including my publication! I'm just seeing the notification now but wanted to let you now it was appreciated. I do my best to avoid to include calls with hefty submissions fees unless the offer is really substantial. Of course 'value' varies by person, but my intention is to include a variety of accessible opportunities.
This post made me laugh out loud AND cringe! Thank you for that.
I'm curious what to say in a cover then if editors had encouraged you to send more work. Shouldn't you acknowledge that request and express gratitude for the encouragement (even if it was months ago?) in the next submission?
It's the lying that's the issue, not the mentioning. As an editor, I can't speak for all mastheads (or even the one I'm on, really), but I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging a note that you did in fact receive. Personally, I don't care; we send enough of them that I don't remember who got them when, and it's always about the quality of the work first and foremost.
I've been published in multiple top-tier magazines, but mostly in the pre-Internet age, as part of a previous career. That means that if some suspicious editor decided to look me up at NYtimes.com, etc., they might not find me and conclude that I am a liar! (I've even had to ask my library's reference experts to track down some of my long-ago publications when I couldn't put my hands on the original.)
Yikes. That's really unfair.
TBH as an editor myself, the last sentence of that quote sounds like grumpy editorial kayfabe to discourage dishonest submitters (the perpetrating takes way less effort than the policing). Omitted above: “We consider every submission based on its own merit, not what the writer has published or come close with previously. Same goes for phony credits.”
I dig sometimes after I read a packet but haven’t changed my Submittable vote/comment as a result.
As a previous Editor-in-Chief of Atticus Review, I have a little inside info. The magazine has gone back and forth over the years between the original publisher (Dan) and the new owner (David), who is a big tech person (though seemingly 3-4 years out of date). Though I never worked with David, my impression was that he was very interested in monetizing AR. My question for AR is if they charge $ for submissions and then pay writers with NFTs.
That NFT Atticus Review thing—dumbest idea ever. I mean, read the room, guys.
Back to the beauty of holding type-set publications in my hands.
I've been minting most of my poems as NFTs before publishing them or posting them anywhere for several years now, as a way of proving that I am the author of the poem. The reason this works is that 1) the wallet address and mint date on the blockchain cannot be modified in any way due to the use of cryptography in maintaining the blockchain, and 2) I am the only person that can open the wallet - again due to the use of cryptography in the way wallets function. If anyone else copies my poem and then claims it as their own, I should be able to use those facts to prove that I am the actual author and that my mint occurred at a point in time before the copy made its appearance. This SHOULD be a boon for publications, as it would simplify their having to check poems for plagiarism - but that would only work if the author submits their poem as an already-minted NFT. Unfortunately, Atticus Review negates this benefit by accepting the text poem from the author and then minting it themselves.
As the editor of a small lit mag, I'm wondering if anyone has any advice for being included in those submission call round-up type articles? Do I need to be reaching out to the list-makers directly? Promoting more on social media? Social Media work is my least favorite part of running a magazine, but I want to make sure I'm getting the word out about our open submission window as best as I can.
Not being on top of the masthead, I don’t have a lot of experience with this, but I got Variant Lit onto Erika Dreifus’s flash nonfiction list by emailing (note her inclusion criteria though), and I gather that Sub Club is pulling from Chill Subs data, in which you should be able to get a listing. (Duotrope has a list too, which goes out to their subscribers; email them for a listing.)
Thanks, David! I do have listings for the magazine on Duotrope and Chill Subs, and I'll keep an eye out for places I can email directly!
Thanks for the link to the list. I found maybe 12 reading periods for poetry and suddenly there are hundreds.
Thank you for including my publication! I'm just seeing the notification now but wanted to let you now it was appreciated. I do my best to avoid to include calls with hefty submissions fees unless the offer is really substantial. Of course 'value' varies by person, but my intention is to include a variety of accessible opportunities.
This post made me laugh out loud AND cringe! Thank you for that.
I'm curious what to say in a cover then if editors had encouraged you to send more work. Shouldn't you acknowledge that request and express gratitude for the encouragement (even if it was months ago?) in the next submission?
It's the lying that's the issue, not the mentioning. As an editor, I can't speak for all mastheads (or even the one I'm on, really), but I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging a note that you did in fact receive. Personally, I don't care; we send enough of them that I don't remember who got them when, and it's always about the quality of the work first and foremost.