Jacobin reviews Granta; submissions woes; New Yorker publication realities; essay submission advice; revision advice; editor interviews; transitioning from academia to lit mags; and more
I recently got my NYer rejection for the poetry I offered them — 26 months post submission. I was amused to see several other writers saying the same on X and Bluesky. 2 years +, for each of us. I have a friend who insists the poetry is not read. “Then why do they bother keeping up the charade that it is?” I said. “It must take some resources to keep up a pretense. Is that investment worth its return in goodwill when writers believe they have some chance, even if minuscule?” The fantasy is that merit will out. But the lines in your newsletter about the fiction editors ignoring unsolicited short stories bolster my friend’s assertion. At least NYer poetry submissions are free. It’s silly it takes more than two years to say no. If the no is predetermined, any turnaround would be arbitrary. Set the bot to say no in a month to maintain the illusion of editorial process … But then if the editors don’t care, why even bother with that?
I don't know why I ever thought differently. I thought somehow I had a chance of publishing in the New Yorker just by sending in a pdf of my best story! I won't bother unless I get an agent. I mean, in 1980 I was assistant to the Editor in Chief of Esquire, and one of my jobs was to turn out rejection letters to pieces that came in, as they called it, over the transom. Not one was ever taken.
I don’t understand why publications like the New Yorker and Esquire go through the charade of taking submissions if they never publish them. I mean, what’s the point of having a submission process if you’re not going to publish anything that comes in?
Liz Bird is so correct about the ineffability of a non-academic essay's match with a lit mag. I've had the same experience with fiction: a story lacks depth, or character development, or empathic ricochet for one editor but has just the complexity and personality and feeling that another editor is looking for. I've long since given up aiming like a bowman. It's blitzkrieg, baby!
The long submission wait times are almost unbearable. I have a piece that’s been sitting at “Received” at the Chicago Quarterly Review for seven months now, and another at Southern Humanities Review for just about that long. If I do eventually hear from them, I’m sure it will be just a form letter. It’s a brutal, dehumanizing process.
What bothers me more than a journal closing without saying anything is a journal closing without saying anything after, like, *a friggin' month of existence*! This is very bad planning. Writers take the time to review the journal, read a few stories, add the data to their journal-selecting algorithm (okay, maybe this is just me), send some work perhaps, and then, boing, the journal's defunct. Dear Editors: What were you thinking? ... I'm just venting.
I recently got my NYer rejection for the poetry I offered them — 26 months post submission. I was amused to see several other writers saying the same on X and Bluesky. 2 years +, for each of us. I have a friend who insists the poetry is not read. “Then why do they bother keeping up the charade that it is?” I said. “It must take some resources to keep up a pretense. Is that investment worth its return in goodwill when writers believe they have some chance, even if minuscule?” The fantasy is that merit will out. But the lines in your newsletter about the fiction editors ignoring unsolicited short stories bolster my friend’s assertion. At least NYer poetry submissions are free. It’s silly it takes more than two years to say no. If the no is predetermined, any turnaround would be arbitrary. Set the bot to say no in a month to maintain the illusion of editorial process … But then if the editors don’t care, why even bother with that?
It's more than "silly" it's a horrific way to treat writers.
I don't know why I ever thought differently. I thought somehow I had a chance of publishing in the New Yorker just by sending in a pdf of my best story! I won't bother unless I get an agent. I mean, in 1980 I was assistant to the Editor in Chief of Esquire, and one of my jobs was to turn out rejection letters to pieces that came in, as they called it, over the transom. Not one was ever taken.
I don’t understand why publications like the New Yorker and Esquire go through the charade of taking submissions if they never publish them. I mean, what’s the point of having a submission process if you’re not going to publish anything that comes in?
Liz Bird is so correct about the ineffability of a non-academic essay's match with a lit mag. I've had the same experience with fiction: a story lacks depth, or character development, or empathic ricochet for one editor but has just the complexity and personality and feeling that another editor is looking for. I've long since given up aiming like a bowman. It's blitzkrieg, baby!
The long submission wait times are almost unbearable. I have a piece that’s been sitting at “Received” at the Chicago Quarterly Review for seven months now, and another at Southern Humanities Review for just about that long. If I do eventually hear from them, I’m sure it will be just a form letter. It’s a brutal, dehumanizing process.
What bothers me more than a journal closing without saying anything is a journal closing without saying anything after, like, *a friggin' month of existence*! This is very bad planning. Writers take the time to review the journal, read a few stories, add the data to their journal-selecting algorithm (okay, maybe this is just me), send some work perhaps, and then, boing, the journal's defunct. Dear Editors: What were you thinking? ... I'm just venting.
HOAX announced their hiatus back in January; I miss them very much, but I hope they're getting the rest they need! https://www.instagram.com/hoaxpublication/p/C2FRL2aIjZ5/
I’m reading Granta’s China issue right now! I love it so much—it’s keeping me awake long past my bedtime.
Telling it like it is re: the New Yorker, et al! :D
Thanks. I can always count on you to present factual info.
Again, thank you for so much good information!