This is quite concerning. I had a very bad interaction with CRAFT a while back (prize deadline was extended, I submitted, then I received an email saying I'd submitted after the deadline and my submission would not be read--but no refund!!) and have never submitted there since. But finding out about some of these being connected has been eye-opening to be sure.
To paraphrase you, I, too, have wondered 'How does this mag earn the money necessary to give out generous contest prizes, and pay its editors and faculty?' about one or two of these and several other litmags. Perhaps the others I've wondered about are also flogging data.
As you suggest, I do tend to think "this is the internet age", but not that it doesn't matter. I'm not on Facebook, Insta, Twitter ('X') or any other social media (except Substack), but so many writers are and are therefore giving vast amounts of data to the Mark Zuckerbergs of this world every day. If that doesn't bother them, why should they worry about Fractured Lit et al. The data DNA is gathering and selling is peanuts by comparison.
As an aside, I've wondered about Substack and what data it is gathering. Does anyone know?
Re Substack. I do know that one of its co-founders is Hamish McKenzie, who worked for Tesla Motors before leaving to write a very pro-Elon book about Tesla titled Insane Mode. (I have the book.) McKenzie went on to found Substack with two tech guys he'd worked with previously in a different tech company. At some point they had a falling-out with Musk, who is now extremely anti-Substack. Possibly(?) because they didn't allow him in on the project; I don't really know, but that's been Musk's pattern-- he was an original investor in OpenAI but then had a falling out with Sam Altman over who would control the direction of the project. (Elon Musk appears to be the ultimate control freak.) Now Altman and Musk are opponents, if not enemies, as their most recent vitriolic dispute about Apple's new business deal with OpenAI indicates. The same situation may apply to McKenzie and Musk, with Musk seeing McKenzie's branching out on his own as a kind of betrayal. (I'm speculating.)
What does this all mean? It means these guys-- the lot of them-- are ruthless sharks. Which is probably unfair to sharks. Is Substack gathering data? As much data as possible, and possibly feeding it into someone's AI? I'd never bet against the notion! In fact, I'd say it's close to a sure thing.
I agree, Trish. I too am not on social media, so I don't worry too much about what Fractured Lit and the others know about me--which is very little. Fractured Lit is actually one of my favorite litmags for flash and micro-fiction and it's long been clear to me that they make the money to pay contributors by running end-to-end contests. Writers can make the choice not to enter those contests and can still submit for free to the magazine and be paid if their submission is published. I definitely don't want to be an apologist for the data-gatherers, but it's also up to writers to decide how much of their personal info they put online.
For me, its about transparency, so if we're going to be doing it, we should at least know. And we can still push back. I'm not on facebook, but at least people know that zuck is draining their data, AND there are now more regulations in place to protect it, so people can protest if they wish, for changes.
Thank you for this article. It’s exactly on point about how people who know how to turn data into profit will pick on groups like aspiring writers, many of whom have not much economic clout ourselves, and turn our data in various money-generating uses. Some, like unwanted spam calls, are obvious. Others not. These people know what they’re doing, most likely, and their lack of transparency demonstrates that they want from us resources they will profit from, but we will not. I deeply appreciate that you took the time and effort to investigate and report on this shameful exploitation of artists who just want to get our work out into public. The need for such detailed find print waivers and other agreements shows that these people are either pros or they want to become pros. There’s nothing in such agreements that protects writers who contribute to these journals. Let’s make it hard and unprofitable for those who want to exploit us. Thank you for raising the alarm. We all owe you at least a dinner and drinks.
They are listed fairly early on in the above article: "These lit mags are Masters Review, Frontier Poetry, Palette Poetry, CRAFT, Fractured Lit and Uncharted. It also includes Pocket MFA."
In the article: "The “dynamic group of literary platforms” are the lit mags, services and programs which operate under DNA. These lit mags are Masters Review, Frontier Poetry, Palette Poetry, CRAFT, Fractured Lit and Uncharted. It also includes Pocket MFA, “a fresh approach to writing education that prioritizes accessibility and community” and Literistic, “an exhaustive list of deadlines for submissions.”
D.P. Snyder, without even looking, I have a hunch that "Literistic" will be filled (mostly) with fee-based submissions. As if we writers can't find new ways for our wallets to leak $$$.
I had an unpleasant interaction with Literistic a while ago. I cancelled my sub and they continued charging my credit card. I sent them several emails and got no response. Finally, I threatened to report this as fraud ,and I got an email apologizing and saying they would reverse the charges, which they never did. I had my credit card reverse the charges, however.
Fractured Lit and CRAFT? Yikes. Excellent sleuthing, Becky. I naively thought Lit mags might be the last holdout for privacy shenanigans. But I suppose we should always be suspicious when a parent company owns many data absorbing platforms, even in the innocent artistic world. :\ Thanks for the exposé!
Bravo. Glad someone else became a bit suspicious of this cluster of "lit-mags." I became wary a few years back after submitting to a couple of the titles -- Masters Review and Palette Poetrey -- and receiving the common rejection notes, FOLLOWED by a regular string of email solicitations to enter this or that contest, at the always-low contest entry fee of ... well, here's a clip from one of their sites:
( Fractured Lit Flash Fiction OPEN | Prize $3500 | Judged by Maurice Carlos Ruffin
Ends on Sun, Jul 14, 2024 11:59 PM
$20.00 )
Do the math. Hook at least 175 entries, and the rest is profit. Enter one site's contest, and wait for the email inviting you to enter contests at other sites. One might speculate about the relationship between the publisher and writers whose work is featured on these sites, writers whose names and work appear frequently around the online lit-mag universe. Still, it IS a business. Not saying anyone should create and launch and manage a lit mag for free (although many do, god bless y'all). Still, caveat emptor, folks.
The money gained from those contests is not all profit: some of it goes to pay the writers whose work appears in the magazine and there is no fee to submit. I don't know about any relationship between the featured writers and the publishers, but maybe the work of those whose writing appears often in online litmags does so because it's good!
Thank you, Becky. That information is very useful and extremely well presented. It will change the way I think and behave on the subject. I'll no longer be naive. That must have taken a lot of your time to investigate and prepare and it's much appreciated.
I read something a couple of years ago about Palette and Frontier being a bit fishy--was it an article of yours, Becky? I didn't save it or anything, or remember the details, but I have retained the suspicions when I see those journals are open for submissions/contests. This just confirms my unease. Thanks for another great piece!
Normally, this is something I would definitely steer clear of. However, I am currently a student of PocketMFA (since April). Its website states the program was founded in 2022 by Joshua Roarke and DNA (https://pocketmfa.com/faq/). I learned about the program through a promotional message from Frontier Poetry. I've also received a promotion from Palette. Yet, the faculty mentors are actually writers I've heard of like Francesca Lia Block, Robert Eversz, and Kristina Marie Darling. That authenticated it for me.
The judges of Fractured Lit's contests (a couple of which I've entered) are also known and excellent authors. I have no qualms about submitting stories to them outside of contests; it's free to do so and they pay contributors.
I received an email about PocketMFA with this subject address: *RE: Your place in PocketMFA's Summer Cohort*, except I'd never sent them anything.
I suspect that, based on the reputation and how Frontier is produced (I've had a lot of respect for it, after reading it and stuff from editors) that DNA is riding the literary communities good faith and genuine interaction of the lit communities players (writers, mentors, students etc) for motivations that may allow them to feel like they can act in non-goodfaith ways to get at whatever it is they are trying to get at (probably money, though I wouldn't put it past OpenAI and Scale to start to target smaller companies to help them get at more creative writing to legally train AI's on since the current availability of internet sites has either been fully scraped, or will become less and less available as they are forced to respect copyrights).
I don't really find that subject line all that different from the many promotional emails I receive from organizations and retailers. It seems like pretty standard copywriting to me. But up until now, I didn't really know the connection between these lit mags and PocketMFA with DNA. I can't say I do understand it.
its spammy to me. Anything connected to a real application, this says "Company that devalues you and can't be trusted with authenticity". In my perspective, industry standard doesn't mean industry ok, or doesn't mean handwaivable. It just means that we have all been acclimated to it. In certain cases we get acclimated by creep, and this is where I haven't seen the creep before - small niche area where things are very personal, and a real application or application spot, or actual communication, could be on the line.
Adding to that, any place that is talking about educational services isn't a retailer, and if they are thinking of themselves like this, you'll have to be much more careful and less authentic with them. Thats not what I want out of a writing program or as a submitter etc.
Have I seen it the larger copy writing market? Yes. Do I find it acceptable? No. Do I find it signaling of the character, trustworthiness and relationship the organization seeks to build with their target audience. Absolutely yes.
Its a huge red flag and I reject it; thats how we destandardize it.
But I recognize that others might have a different experience, and that we have different perspectives.
I think it's more than fair to ask these questions, but I think it would be good to ask these questions of the lit mags and DNA. Were these questions pointed to DNA, Segal, D'Errico, and Derrico? Or just to... the air? The Derrico/ D'Errico issue is wild speculation, even pointed out as "more than likely they are not the same person," yet you ran with it anyway. This is mind-boggling to me, in an article about responsibility with personal privacy. I agree that Masters Review, Fractured Lit, et. al. are hardly all about the art, but this piece reeks of tabloid. Not what I expect from Lit Mag News.
I'm sorry to see Master's Review on this list. What I liked about paying for feedback for submissions from them is if your submit is rejected, their feed back was really good and they listed lit mags where said piece might fit better. Two of my published stories in lit mags was a result of this.
This is quite concerning. I had a very bad interaction with CRAFT a while back (prize deadline was extended, I submitted, then I received an email saying I'd submitted after the deadline and my submission would not be read--but no refund!!) and have never submitted there since. But finding out about some of these being connected has been eye-opening to be sure.
Never pay submission fees.
I also had a bad interaction with CRAFT. Got a rejection for a prize submission less than a week after closing deadline.
Another well-researched article, Becky,
To paraphrase you, I, too, have wondered 'How does this mag earn the money necessary to give out generous contest prizes, and pay its editors and faculty?' about one or two of these and several other litmags. Perhaps the others I've wondered about are also flogging data.
As you suggest, I do tend to think "this is the internet age", but not that it doesn't matter. I'm not on Facebook, Insta, Twitter ('X') or any other social media (except Substack), but so many writers are and are therefore giving vast amounts of data to the Mark Zuckerbergs of this world every day. If that doesn't bother them, why should they worry about Fractured Lit et al. The data DNA is gathering and selling is peanuts by comparison.
As an aside, I've wondered about Substack and what data it is gathering. Does anyone know?
Re Substack. I do know that one of its co-founders is Hamish McKenzie, who worked for Tesla Motors before leaving to write a very pro-Elon book about Tesla titled Insane Mode. (I have the book.) McKenzie went on to found Substack with two tech guys he'd worked with previously in a different tech company. At some point they had a falling-out with Musk, who is now extremely anti-Substack. Possibly(?) because they didn't allow him in on the project; I don't really know, but that's been Musk's pattern-- he was an original investor in OpenAI but then had a falling out with Sam Altman over who would control the direction of the project. (Elon Musk appears to be the ultimate control freak.) Now Altman and Musk are opponents, if not enemies, as their most recent vitriolic dispute about Apple's new business deal with OpenAI indicates. The same situation may apply to McKenzie and Musk, with Musk seeing McKenzie's branching out on his own as a kind of betrayal. (I'm speculating.)
What does this all mean? It means these guys-- the lot of them-- are ruthless sharks. Which is probably unfair to sharks. Is Substack gathering data? As much data as possible, and possibly feeding it into someone's AI? I'd never bet against the notion! In fact, I'd say it's close to a sure thing.
Thanks, Karl. That's interesting. I doubt there's any escape from all this, even if one goes completely off-grid!
"unfair to sharks" Indeed.
I agree, Trish. I too am not on social media, so I don't worry too much about what Fractured Lit and the others know about me--which is very little. Fractured Lit is actually one of my favorite litmags for flash and micro-fiction and it's long been clear to me that they make the money to pay contributors by running end-to-end contests. Writers can make the choice not to enter those contests and can still submit for free to the magazine and be paid if their submission is published. I definitely don't want to be an apologist for the data-gatherers, but it's also up to writers to decide how much of their personal info they put online.
For me, its about transparency, so if we're going to be doing it, we should at least know. And we can still push back. I'm not on facebook, but at least people know that zuck is draining their data, AND there are now more regulations in place to protect it, so people can protest if they wish, for changes.
Thank you for this article. It’s exactly on point about how people who know how to turn data into profit will pick on groups like aspiring writers, many of whom have not much economic clout ourselves, and turn our data in various money-generating uses. Some, like unwanted spam calls, are obvious. Others not. These people know what they’re doing, most likely, and their lack of transparency demonstrates that they want from us resources they will profit from, but we will not. I deeply appreciate that you took the time and effort to investigate and report on this shameful exploitation of artists who just want to get our work out into public. The need for such detailed find print waivers and other agreements shows that these people are either pros or they want to become pros. There’s nothing in such agreements that protects writers who contribute to these journals. Let’s make it hard and unprofitable for those who want to exploit us. Thank you for raising the alarm. We all owe you at least a dinner and drinks.
"Let’s make it hard and unprofitable for those who want to exploit us." What do you suggest?
I think that I would very much appreciate a list of the lit mags this company has- so that I can avoid them like the plague?
They are listed fairly early on in the above article: "These lit mags are Masters Review, Frontier Poetry, Palette Poetry, CRAFT, Fractured Lit and Uncharted. It also includes Pocket MFA."
In the article: "The “dynamic group of literary platforms” are the lit mags, services and programs which operate under DNA. These lit mags are Masters Review, Frontier Poetry, Palette Poetry, CRAFT, Fractured Lit and Uncharted. It also includes Pocket MFA, “a fresh approach to writing education that prioritizes accessibility and community” and Literistic, “an exhaustive list of deadlines for submissions.”
D.P. Snyder, without even looking, I have a hunch that "Literistic" will be filled (mostly) with fee-based submissions. As if we writers can't find new ways for our wallets to leak $$$.
I had an unpleasant interaction with Literistic a while ago. I cancelled my sub and they continued charging my credit card. I sent them several emails and got no response. Finally, I threatened to report this as fraud ,and I got an email apologizing and saying they would reverse the charges, which they never did. I had my credit card reverse the charges, however.
Never pay. For anything, submissions, contests, applications. Never pay.
Something is rotten in their DNA.
Fractured Lit and CRAFT? Yikes. Excellent sleuthing, Becky. I naively thought Lit mags might be the last holdout for privacy shenanigans. But I suppose we should always be suspicious when a parent company owns many data absorbing platforms, even in the innocent artistic world. :\ Thanks for the exposé!
Thanks so much for this. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the magazines to this article … or the eloquent silence.
Bravo. Glad someone else became a bit suspicious of this cluster of "lit-mags." I became wary a few years back after submitting to a couple of the titles -- Masters Review and Palette Poetrey -- and receiving the common rejection notes, FOLLOWED by a regular string of email solicitations to enter this or that contest, at the always-low contest entry fee of ... well, here's a clip from one of their sites:
( Fractured Lit Flash Fiction OPEN | Prize $3500 | Judged by Maurice Carlos Ruffin
Ends on Sun, Jul 14, 2024 11:59 PM
$20.00 )
Do the math. Hook at least 175 entries, and the rest is profit. Enter one site's contest, and wait for the email inviting you to enter contests at other sites. One might speculate about the relationship between the publisher and writers whose work is featured on these sites, writers whose names and work appear frequently around the online lit-mag universe. Still, it IS a business. Not saying anyone should create and launch and manage a lit mag for free (although many do, god bless y'all). Still, caveat emptor, folks.
The money gained from those contests is not all profit: some of it goes to pay the writers whose work appears in the magazine and there is no fee to submit. I don't know about any relationship between the featured writers and the publishers, but maybe the work of those whose writing appears often in online litmags does so because it's good!
Wowza. Thanks for this information. Those endless contest emails in my inbox from Frontier and Palette have always seemed a bit sus.....
Thank you, Becky. That information is very useful and extremely well presented. It will change the way I think and behave on the subject. I'll no longer be naive. That must have taken a lot of your time to investigate and prepare and it's much appreciated.
Wow! This has been eye opening to say the least- Cringing hard at the revelations
Thank you so much for writing this post. This needs to be shared across the board.
You are so THOROUGH. Great article.
I read something a couple of years ago about Palette and Frontier being a bit fishy--was it an article of yours, Becky? I didn't save it or anything, or remember the details, but I have retained the suspicions when I see those journals are open for submissions/contests. This just confirms my unease. Thanks for another great piece!
Strange times we live in, when having our unease confirmed helps us rest easier.
Strange days indeed (to quote John Lennon) for this and so many reasons!
Normally, this is something I would definitely steer clear of. However, I am currently a student of PocketMFA (since April). Its website states the program was founded in 2022 by Joshua Roarke and DNA (https://pocketmfa.com/faq/). I learned about the program through a promotional message from Frontier Poetry. I've also received a promotion from Palette. Yet, the faculty mentors are actually writers I've heard of like Francesca Lia Block, Robert Eversz, and Kristina Marie Darling. That authenticated it for me.
I'm now wondering what this DNA is all about.
The judges of Fractured Lit's contests (a couple of which I've entered) are also known and excellent authors. I have no qualms about submitting stories to them outside of contests; it's free to do so and they pay contributors.
I received an email about PocketMFA with this subject address: *RE: Your place in PocketMFA's Summer Cohort*, except I'd never sent them anything.
I suspect that, based on the reputation and how Frontier is produced (I've had a lot of respect for it, after reading it and stuff from editors) that DNA is riding the literary communities good faith and genuine interaction of the lit communities players (writers, mentors, students etc) for motivations that may allow them to feel like they can act in non-goodfaith ways to get at whatever it is they are trying to get at (probably money, though I wouldn't put it past OpenAI and Scale to start to target smaller companies to help them get at more creative writing to legally train AI's on since the current availability of internet sites has either been fully scraped, or will become less and less available as they are forced to respect copyrights).
I don't really find that subject line all that different from the many promotional emails I receive from organizations and retailers. It seems like pretty standard copywriting to me. But up until now, I didn't really know the connection between these lit mags and PocketMFA with DNA. I can't say I do understand it.
its spammy to me. Anything connected to a real application, this says "Company that devalues you and can't be trusted with authenticity". In my perspective, industry standard doesn't mean industry ok, or doesn't mean handwaivable. It just means that we have all been acclimated to it. In certain cases we get acclimated by creep, and this is where I haven't seen the creep before - small niche area where things are very personal, and a real application or application spot, or actual communication, could be on the line.
Adding to that, any place that is talking about educational services isn't a retailer, and if they are thinking of themselves like this, you'll have to be much more careful and less authentic with them. Thats not what I want out of a writing program or as a submitter etc.
Have I seen it the larger copy writing market? Yes. Do I find it acceptable? No. Do I find it signaling of the character, trustworthiness and relationship the organization seeks to build with their target audience. Absolutely yes.
Its a huge red flag and I reject it; thats how we destandardize it.
But I recognize that others might have a different experience, and that we have different perspectives.
I think it's more than fair to ask these questions, but I think it would be good to ask these questions of the lit mags and DNA. Were these questions pointed to DNA, Segal, D'Errico, and Derrico? Or just to... the air? The Derrico/ D'Errico issue is wild speculation, even pointed out as "more than likely they are not the same person," yet you ran with it anyway. This is mind-boggling to me, in an article about responsibility with personal privacy. I agree that Masters Review, Fractured Lit, et. al. are hardly all about the art, but this piece reeks of tabloid. Not what I expect from Lit Mag News.
I'm sorry to see Master's Review on this list. What I liked about paying for feedback for submissions from them is if your submit is rejected, their feed back was really good and they listed lit mags where said piece might fit better. Two of my published stories in lit mags was a result of this.