New editor of BASS; staff resignations at Chestnut Review; end of NYTimes poetry column; teaching writing to the CIA; thoughts on Kafka; advice for submitting; hundreds of markets & more
There's been an awful lot of sideshows in the lit scene of late in relation to the horrors going on in Israel/Gaza. And honestly, I think they diminish the seriousness of what's happening and has been happening there for many years. Granted, being online it's good to see that there are writers speaking up. I know I have, while more or less casually observing what's happening in the lit scene and otherwise ignoring it. But, I took more notice of what happened with Chestnut Review, where a publisher was pressured to publish something he was reticent to publish, decided not to, and was then collectively branded as having censored a writer. The online discourse was such that even he came to agree with the allegation, which I'd say is false. Reason being, the bio was submitted after the poet's work was accepted with an ultimatum that if the EIC didn't publish it, then the writer would rescind their accepted work. Given the circumstances, saying no to that--regardless of the editor's political position on *any* matter--is an expression of his freedom to publish what he wishes to publish. Had he done otherwise, it would have been compelled speech, which is what all those who accused him of censorship were actually advocating.
Can someone elaborate why the intent “to avoid making a political statement” provoked such a response? If an editor objected to my bio, I would expect them to have final say over what they published. What am I missing?
You're not missing anything, really. But rather, cutting through the noise by asking the questions you're asking. What's newsworthy here (at least in my opinion) is enough of the magazine's staff and audience believe the EIC is obliged to surrender his freedom to publish (or in this case, not publish) what he chooses. They're ultimately conflating their passionate feelings about human rights with a sense that they're also entitled to broadcast it on a platform where they do not have a final say over what does and does not get published. And I write that as someone who has been regularly posting on Twitter my concerns regarding the horrors unfolding in Gaza. But, of course, that's a platform where I'm not subject to the same level of review as a literary magazine, which is under no obligation to publish my writing, much less my opinions on human rights issues.
I agree. The freedom to publish or not rests with the editor.
Is any political position expressed in a bio worth more than the writing its attached to?
I have a hard time believing we’d be at a similar outcome if the revised bio spoke out in favor of a contentious far right position. Declining that bio would be likely viewed positively.
But neither approach respects the editor, the journal, a contributor’s effort with the actual words, or whatever inspired the original submission.
I'd have to think about that personally--i.e. whether "any political position expressed in a bio worth more than the writing its attached to?" That seems subjective and would vary from person to person. Conversely, you're right to say it would be hard to universalize this notion that a publisher is obliged to publish a bio that forgoes the usual list of recent credits and the like for just any ol' form of political expression. I kept imagining how the same crowd would react if a publisher posted a bio that contained the infamous "14 words." They'd be put off by it, and . . . quite rightly! As to the incident disrespecting the editor, in this instance it certainly did. Making an ultimatum *after* the work was already accepted, posting about it on SM when it didn't work out in the poet's favor, the ensuing dogpile . . . yeah, it's shitty. But, what really gets me is it does precious little to actually advocate for the people of Gaza, most especially advocate to those who hold actual authority. For in the end, what's it really matter in the grand scheme of things where the EIC of Chestnut Review stands on this long-standing conflict? It doesn't. It's just people utilizing the lit scene to elevate their own opinions about it at the expense of someone else, wherein the latter is left feeling unduly compelled to apologize and issue an "official" statement rather than doing so via their own volition.
There is the argument that silence on an issue means agreement or consent. And there is argument that writers have an obligation to speak out if they think potential war crimes or injustices are occurring and not being recognized as such. There are of course counter arguments and it's fair to say that a magazine can pay a price for taking a position on Israel's actions in Gaza. So James Rawlings may have had his reasons for not agreeing to Gabrielle Spears' statement bio. But it looks like there was also internal disagreement over how the Chestnut Review decision was made, with the possibility of Rawlings being heavy handed with staff who sympathized with Gabrielle Spears.
I suppose if people feel strongly about an issue they have a need and I suppose ought to speak out about it. But while I've been trying over the last couple of years to separate the art from the artist so I can learn things and not just cancel everything someone has done, I keep seeing people drawing lines and putting their politics over their art. Not that it's a new thing, but it seems like a waste of good work to me. It's not like any of the names mentioned in the Gaza Dispute portion of this post are titans or giants in any game I know of, so why should I give a shit about their politics? Do your art, not as a careerist who has no conscience, but as someone who has a gift readers like myself would like you to share. Because of my opinion on the conflict, I don't really care if you are for one side or the other in the Middle East and don't feel any compunction to not read this or that one because they are. Dividing into tribes again and again is Balkanization. Social circles are getting smaller and smaller, and demands for purity are getting more and more unreasonable.
I have no problem with a lit mag saying they don't want political statements in their contributor bios. Are bios now a sacred form of expression? If someone wanted to trumpet MAGA propaganda in their bio, would a lit mag have to publish it?
The NYTimes poetry column ending makes me really sad. I feel like instead of responding to Anne's very powerful choice, NYTimes just rolled their eyes at poetry itself. Yes, sure they can "survive" without poetry, but as more and more places of apparent culture and conversation begin to exclude the voice of poets and writers, one has to wonder where that culture is in fact coming and growing from? And where the heck it is going
Let's hope the new BASS editor is open to publishing work without considering the journal. (A policy of reading blind would be amazing, but I'm sure this is a longshot.) Over the years, I've read some amazing stories in the series, but I've also read some duds that I suspect were included only because a well-known author published it in a well-known journal (usually the New Yorker). There's great writing beyond the top twenty or so literary journals! It would be great if BASS reflected this truth.
Abby, I have read the piece and am familiar with its arguments. The problem with it is that it overlooks the Nation - State Basic Law, the statements by Netanyahu and others that Israel is not the state of its non Jewish citizens, legal and unofficial discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and, most glaringly, the occupied West Bank where Jewish settlers have a different set of legal and political rights than Palestinians. These and other practices have of course led B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International to conclude that Israel has imposed a regime on the Palestinians that fits the legal definition of apartheid (and resembles South Africa's apartheid much more than it differs). These organizations' reports contain what Orwell would call "unpleasant facts" that are largely undisputed. The reports are available online.
I couldn't comment or see the article about photos, since I can't do a paid subscription, so I will post my comment here. I'm not comfortable with submitting a photo before they choose to accept or decline my work, which should stand on its own merit, not my appearance. If a lit mag wants the photo after accepting the work, fine.
Thanks for sharing your interview, Becky. The Lit Mag Reading Club is a blast. I’ll have to check out Russell Banks. Fetch was one of my favorites too as was 11 things I have left now that my daughter is gone. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/880389/pdf
The CIA's involvement on the literary world goes back to at least 1956, when the CIA funded the establishment of the Australian magazine, Quadrant, which still exists and still remains far right in its views and in what it prefers to publish. You can read the full context here. https://litmagnews.substack.com/p/the-poet-who-wasnt-there-but-became
I also loved Lichtman's piece in the Paris Review. He gets us inside a place most of us will never get to see. So why do they have a museum and a gift shop at CIA headquarters?
Becky, You write this: Editors and writers (yes, writers can submit work too!), be sure to submit your nominations for Best American Short Stories (for stories published in 2024) to this address: What does this mean? Does it mean, that I can sent my published story to her, regardless of whether the pub wants to send it? I thought that those nominations came from... well. God. Or who knows whom. Or the publication picked what they thought was their best and sent those. So please elaborate. Do we have to sent the printed piece? The place online where it came out? A file with the place where the story got published. Details, details, details.
This is awesome. I had to read it twice to realize that these submissions are for stories published in print and/or online in 2023. I did not see a deadline anywhere.
I did find this at the end of it: Deadline: You must submit any material for consideration by December 31st of the eligibility year
There are so many good things in this post that if I commented on them all, it would take up everyone's whole day (including mine). However I do want to comment on the Chestnut Review debacle. As a Brit, I'm not up to speed on all the litmags on the other side of the pond, but I have read many posts on various sites expressing support for the Palestinians in Gaza, although never in a litmag. I don't believe they should be a platform for a writer to express personal political beliefs, except through their writing. As an aside, many (but by no means all) people expressing their views on Gaza do not know their history, or get their history from biased sources. Standing with the Palestinians is fine. Understanding why this latest conflict broke out would be even better. It includes understanding the history of the region, the West's response to the Holocaust, the Arab states' response to the creation of Israel and the displaced Palestinians (hostility). A lot of people have blood on their hands. I condemn the unnecessary killing of bystanders anywhere in the world, but political ideology has no place in a litmag bio.
I agree with Abby that a litmag bio is no place for political ideology. There are rights and wrongs on both sides of the Palestine-Israel conflict and people should read history. Palestinians are a people, but Palestine was never a nation state. The territory was occupied by the Ottoman Empire until 1918, then the British Empire until 1948. In the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, Israel, Jordan and Egypt all occupied parts of Palestine. The destruction and loss of life in Gaza is appalling, but it has its roots in a tangled web of occupations and wars.
The counter argument to Abby is that writers should be able to address difficult political issues even if they cause discomfort or trigger emotions. As I mentioned in a prior comment, there's also the tricky question of whether writers should speak out if they think crimes or wrongs are not being recognized, particularly in times where there's pushback against protest and dissent. (This, BTW, has happened in literary and publishing venues, as the 92nd St. Y and Frankfurt book fair cancellations of events for pro Palestinian writers, the backlash against the Palestinian literary festival at UPenn, the Harvard Law Review pulling an article for fear of retribution, and the firings of the Artforum and eLife editors all show). I personally didn't find Gabrielle Spear's statement to be nuanced or effective, and one can argue that it should have been in a poem or prose piece instead of a bio, but I think it came from a sense of moral urgency.
As for people being uninformed and looking at history selectively, yes, that's not uncommon and it's not good. But many American and Western supporters of Israel do this too, viewing the Israel - Palestine conflict, for example, primarily through the lens of the Holocaust and denying the Nakba or not addressing current Israeli policies in the occupied West Bank. While I don't know what Abby's precise views are, if she and others want to be informed and understand the case for speaking out, I'd encourage her to look at South Africa's application in the ICF genocide case if she hasn't done so already. While you may disagree with SA's ultimate arguments, that filing (available online) states largely undisputed facts and also quotes the statements of Israeli political leaders and military people.
I see that my response to this last comment by Abby has been posted elsewhere, so I apologize. But my response was that the linked article that dismisses criticism of Israel's policies as just antisemitism is selective in its facts. The article overlooks the Nation-State Law, the harsh occupation of the West Bank, the different sets of rights for Jewish settlers and Palestinians, and other policies that subordinate one ethnic group to another. These were the basis for the findings of apartheid by Israeli and international human rights groups.
There are rights and wrongs on both sides of the Palestine-Israel conflict. I agree with Abby that people should read and understand history, The Palestinians are a people, but Palestine was never a nation state. It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire until 1918, then by the British Empire under a League of Nations mandate. In the Arab-Israeli war of 1948,
Yes, I remember also being surprised to learn they accept submissions from writers as well as editors. I imagine the guidelines will be the same for the 2025 edition. I'll keep you all posted as I find out more.
This makes me sad and annoyed. One of my stories came out on the 2023 issue of a well done Literary Publication, but the issue was not delivered until January of 2024. So it seems it's too late to submit it to the BASS. Unless, since it came out on 2024 they would allow it for the next year. Doubt it.
There's been an awful lot of sideshows in the lit scene of late in relation to the horrors going on in Israel/Gaza. And honestly, I think they diminish the seriousness of what's happening and has been happening there for many years. Granted, being online it's good to see that there are writers speaking up. I know I have, while more or less casually observing what's happening in the lit scene and otherwise ignoring it. But, I took more notice of what happened with Chestnut Review, where a publisher was pressured to publish something he was reticent to publish, decided not to, and was then collectively branded as having censored a writer. The online discourse was such that even he came to agree with the allegation, which I'd say is false. Reason being, the bio was submitted after the poet's work was accepted with an ultimatum that if the EIC didn't publish it, then the writer would rescind their accepted work. Given the circumstances, saying no to that--regardless of the editor's political position on *any* matter--is an expression of his freedom to publish what he wishes to publish. Had he done otherwise, it would have been compelled speech, which is what all those who accused him of censorship were actually advocating.
Can someone elaborate why the intent “to avoid making a political statement” provoked such a response? If an editor objected to my bio, I would expect them to have final say over what they published. What am I missing?
You're not missing anything, really. But rather, cutting through the noise by asking the questions you're asking. What's newsworthy here (at least in my opinion) is enough of the magazine's staff and audience believe the EIC is obliged to surrender his freedom to publish (or in this case, not publish) what he chooses. They're ultimately conflating their passionate feelings about human rights with a sense that they're also entitled to broadcast it on a platform where they do not have a final say over what does and does not get published. And I write that as someone who has been regularly posting on Twitter my concerns regarding the horrors unfolding in Gaza. But, of course, that's a platform where I'm not subject to the same level of review as a literary magazine, which is under no obligation to publish my writing, much less my opinions on human rights issues.
I agree. The freedom to publish or not rests with the editor.
Is any political position expressed in a bio worth more than the writing its attached to?
I have a hard time believing we’d be at a similar outcome if the revised bio spoke out in favor of a contentious far right position. Declining that bio would be likely viewed positively.
But neither approach respects the editor, the journal, a contributor’s effort with the actual words, or whatever inspired the original submission.
I'd have to think about that personally--i.e. whether "any political position expressed in a bio worth more than the writing its attached to?" That seems subjective and would vary from person to person. Conversely, you're right to say it would be hard to universalize this notion that a publisher is obliged to publish a bio that forgoes the usual list of recent credits and the like for just any ol' form of political expression. I kept imagining how the same crowd would react if a publisher posted a bio that contained the infamous "14 words." They'd be put off by it, and . . . quite rightly! As to the incident disrespecting the editor, in this instance it certainly did. Making an ultimatum *after* the work was already accepted, posting about it on SM when it didn't work out in the poet's favor, the ensuing dogpile . . . yeah, it's shitty. But, what really gets me is it does precious little to actually advocate for the people of Gaza, most especially advocate to those who hold actual authority. For in the end, what's it really matter in the grand scheme of things where the EIC of Chestnut Review stands on this long-standing conflict? It doesn't. It's just people utilizing the lit scene to elevate their own opinions about it at the expense of someone else, wherein the latter is left feeling unduly compelled to apologize and issue an "official" statement rather than doing so via their own volition.
There is the argument that silence on an issue means agreement or consent. And there is argument that writers have an obligation to speak out if they think potential war crimes or injustices are occurring and not being recognized as such. There are of course counter arguments and it's fair to say that a magazine can pay a price for taking a position on Israel's actions in Gaza. So James Rawlings may have had his reasons for not agreeing to Gabrielle Spears' statement bio. But it looks like there was also internal disagreement over how the Chestnut Review decision was made, with the possibility of Rawlings being heavy handed with staff who sympathized with Gabrielle Spears.
Silence is silence. Whatever we read into it is whatever we read into it.
It’s surprising to believe Chestnut Review—and any journal or editor—owes anyone else a list of their politics.
That argument doesn’t hold up with me. We never know the intent behind the avoidance.
Holding your work hostage over a specific bio also seems to devalue the work itself.
And if you’re going to subject editors to political purity tests, maybe insist on it before submitting?
Reminds me why I run my own lit mag... I can't be fired, only canceled.
One of the reasons I don't hire any staff.
I'm being completely serious. And yes, 100%, I aim to create a welcoming space for all.
I suppose if people feel strongly about an issue they have a need and I suppose ought to speak out about it. But while I've been trying over the last couple of years to separate the art from the artist so I can learn things and not just cancel everything someone has done, I keep seeing people drawing lines and putting their politics over their art. Not that it's a new thing, but it seems like a waste of good work to me. It's not like any of the names mentioned in the Gaza Dispute portion of this post are titans or giants in any game I know of, so why should I give a shit about their politics? Do your art, not as a careerist who has no conscience, but as someone who has a gift readers like myself would like you to share. Because of my opinion on the conflict, I don't really care if you are for one side or the other in the Middle East and don't feel any compunction to not read this or that one because they are. Dividing into tribes again and again is Balkanization. Social circles are getting smaller and smaller, and demands for purity are getting more and more unreasonable.
Well said. And isn’t reading good ideas from people we disagree with a way to build sympathy?
I’d rather engage with the work first and then be curious about who wrote it and why (or not).
I have no problem with a lit mag saying they don't want political statements in their contributor bios. Are bios now a sacred form of expression? If someone wanted to trumpet MAGA propaganda in their bio, would a lit mag have to publish it?
The NYTimes poetry column ending makes me really sad. I feel like instead of responding to Anne's very powerful choice, NYTimes just rolled their eyes at poetry itself. Yes, sure they can "survive" without poetry, but as more and more places of apparent culture and conversation begin to exclude the voice of poets and writers, one has to wonder where that culture is in fact coming and growing from? And where the heck it is going
Let's hope the new BASS editor is open to publishing work without considering the journal. (A policy of reading blind would be amazing, but I'm sure this is a longshot.) Over the years, I've read some amazing stories in the series, but I've also read some duds that I suspect were included only because a well-known author published it in a well-known journal (usually the New Yorker). There's great writing beyond the top twenty or so literary journals! It would be great if BASS reflected this truth.
Abby, I have read the piece and am familiar with its arguments. The problem with it is that it overlooks the Nation - State Basic Law, the statements by Netanyahu and others that Israel is not the state of its non Jewish citizens, legal and unofficial discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and, most glaringly, the occupied West Bank where Jewish settlers have a different set of legal and political rights than Palestinians. These and other practices have of course led B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International to conclude that Israel has imposed a regime on the Palestinians that fits the legal definition of apartheid (and resembles South Africa's apartheid much more than it differs). These organizations' reports contain what Orwell would call "unpleasant facts" that are largely undisputed. The reports are available online.
Becky, this was so good!
I see we read similarly :)
Loved the CIA piece in The Paris Review. I have a nod to it in my next newsletter out this coming Sunday. Such a fun read!
So interesting!
I couldn't comment or see the article about photos, since I can't do a paid subscription, so I will post my comment here. I'm not comfortable with submitting a photo before they choose to accept or decline my work, which should stand on its own merit, not my appearance. If a lit mag wants the photo after accepting the work, fine.
Thanks for sharing your interview, Becky. The Lit Mag Reading Club is a blast. I’ll have to check out Russell Banks. Fetch was one of my favorites too as was 11 things I have left now that my daughter is gone. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/880389/pdf
The CIA's involvement on the literary world goes back to at least 1956, when the CIA funded the establishment of the Australian magazine, Quadrant, which still exists and still remains far right in its views and in what it prefers to publish. You can read the full context here. https://litmagnews.substack.com/p/the-poet-who-wasnt-there-but-became
I also loved Lichtman's piece in the Paris Review. He gets us inside a place most of us will never get to see. So why do they have a museum and a gift shop at CIA headquarters?
A superb list of all things Kafkaesque:
https://lithub.com/a-kafkaesque-list-of-things-described-as-kafkaesque/
Be sure to read the one about the guy banned for life from Airbnb.
Becky, You write this: Editors and writers (yes, writers can submit work too!), be sure to submit your nominations for Best American Short Stories (for stories published in 2024) to this address: What does this mean? Does it mean, that I can sent my published story to her, regardless of whether the pub wants to send it? I thought that those nominations came from... well. God. Or who knows whom. Or the publication picked what they thought was their best and sent those. So please elaborate. Do we have to sent the printed piece? The place online where it came out? A file with the place where the story got published. Details, details, details.
Great questions. These are the submission guidelines currently: https://media.sailthru.com/composer/images/sailthru-prod-6jb/pdf/BA_submissions_2024.pdf
That is all I know. Hope that helps.
This is awesome. I had to read it twice to realize that these submissions are for stories published in print and/or online in 2023. I did not see a deadline anywhere.
I did find this at the end of it: Deadline: You must submit any material for consideration by December 31st of the eligibility year
(2023).
There are so many good things in this post that if I commented on them all, it would take up everyone's whole day (including mine). However I do want to comment on the Chestnut Review debacle. As a Brit, I'm not up to speed on all the litmags on the other side of the pond, but I have read many posts on various sites expressing support for the Palestinians in Gaza, although never in a litmag. I don't believe they should be a platform for a writer to express personal political beliefs, except through their writing. As an aside, many (but by no means all) people expressing their views on Gaza do not know their history, or get their history from biased sources. Standing with the Palestinians is fine. Understanding why this latest conflict broke out would be even better. It includes understanding the history of the region, the West's response to the Holocaust, the Arab states' response to the creation of Israel and the displaced Palestinians (hostility). A lot of people have blood on their hands. I condemn the unnecessary killing of bystanders anywhere in the world, but political ideology has no place in a litmag bio.
I agree with Abby that a litmag bio is no place for political ideology. There are rights and wrongs on both sides of the Palestine-Israel conflict and people should read history. Palestinians are a people, but Palestine was never a nation state. The territory was occupied by the Ottoman Empire until 1918, then the British Empire until 1948. In the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, Israel, Jordan and Egypt all occupied parts of Palestine. The destruction and loss of life in Gaza is appalling, but it has its roots in a tangled web of occupations and wars.
The counter argument to Abby is that writers should be able to address difficult political issues even if they cause discomfort or trigger emotions. As I mentioned in a prior comment, there's also the tricky question of whether writers should speak out if they think crimes or wrongs are not being recognized, particularly in times where there's pushback against protest and dissent. (This, BTW, has happened in literary and publishing venues, as the 92nd St. Y and Frankfurt book fair cancellations of events for pro Palestinian writers, the backlash against the Palestinian literary festival at UPenn, the Harvard Law Review pulling an article for fear of retribution, and the firings of the Artforum and eLife editors all show). I personally didn't find Gabrielle Spear's statement to be nuanced or effective, and one can argue that it should have been in a poem or prose piece instead of a bio, but I think it came from a sense of moral urgency.
As for people being uninformed and looking at history selectively, yes, that's not uncommon and it's not good. But many American and Western supporters of Israel do this too, viewing the Israel - Palestine conflict, for example, primarily through the lens of the Holocaust and denying the Nakba or not addressing current Israeli policies in the occupied West Bank. While I don't know what Abby's precise views are, if she and others want to be informed and understand the case for speaking out, I'd encourage her to look at South Africa's application in the ICF genocide case if she hasn't done so already. While you may disagree with SA's ultimate arguments, that filing (available online) states largely undisputed facts and also quotes the statements of Israeli political leaders and military people.
It's also worth reading this https://www.thejc.com/news/dr-denis-maceoins-letter-to-the-edinburgh-university-students-association-pf63hsy2
I see that my response to this last comment by Abby has been posted elsewhere, so I apologize. But my response was that the linked article that dismisses criticism of Israel's policies as just antisemitism is selective in its facts. The article overlooks the Nation-State Law, the harsh occupation of the West Bank, the different sets of rights for Jewish settlers and Palestinians, and other policies that subordinate one ethnic group to another. These were the basis for the findings of apartheid by Israeli and international human rights groups.
There are rights and wrongs on both sides of the Palestine-Israel conflict. I agree with Abby that people should read and understand history, The Palestinians are a people, but Palestine was never a nation state. It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire until 1918, then by the British Empire under a League of Nations mandate. In the Arab-Israeli war of 1948,
Yes, I remember also being surprised to learn they accept submissions from writers as well as editors. I imagine the guidelines will be the same for the 2025 edition. I'll keep you all posted as I find out more.
This makes me sad and annoyed. One of my stories came out on the 2023 issue of a well done Literary Publication, but the issue was not delivered until January of 2024. So it seems it's too late to submit it to the BASS. Unless, since it came out on 2024 they would allow it for the next year. Doubt it.