Q: How do we spot scammy lit mags and presses (part 2)?
"When editors are not transparent with writers..."
Welcome to our weekend conversation!
Yesterday I had an interesting interaction with a literary journal. The magazine had announced on its Facebook page that it was returning after a hiatus.
Red River Review is back!
The journal that helped define early online poetry is returning with a new site, new spirit, and an expanded vision for creative work.
Now accepting poetry, fiction, creative nonfiction, hybrid forms, and visual art.
Read the full call for submissions: redriverreview.org
Let’s write the next chapter together.
Sometimes “we are going on hiatus” is a euphemism for “we are folding but we’re not ready to openly discuss it or even admit it to ourselves.” Other times a hiatus is just that—temporary time off to step back, reflect and regroup. It’s always heartening to see when it’s the latter, as it reminds us how dedicated editors are to their projects and how committed to seeing them run optimally.
In this case, Red River Review announced its relaunch with a $15 reading fee for general submissions.
That was a bit less heartening. Many people, including myself, left comments on their Facebook announcement.
In response to our concerns, the magazine posted a brief statement:
Here is where things get complicated.
Let me first back up and say that I do not—I repeat, I DO NOT—think this magazine is a scam. I believe the editors when they say the $15 fee represents the cost of their labor and expenses. I trust that this journal has every intention to read submissions, respond in a reasonable time frame, and publish chosen works.
In other words, the fee is steep. But there is no reason to think they will not hold up their end of the bargain. That includes giving writers a fair shot of publishing in their journal and publishing work in a timely manner.
There is no indication this magazine will behave like PANK, for instance, which had submissions open for over one year, charged $5 per manuscript, and all the while had stopped publishing new work or even reading what was being sent in.
Nor is there reason to believe it is like JuxtaProse, a lit mag known to promote contests, only to push the deadlines back, in some cases never even announcing a winner.
Nor is it like Able Muse, which also appears not to have published the winner for its 2023 contest, as promised, and with whom contest winners are having trouble communicating.
It is also not like Narrative Magazine, which sponsored a contest recently in multiple genres and did not announce a single winner in any category and certainly did not refund writers their $27 entry fee.
All of these magazines are behaving in shady ways. They are shady in the metaphorical sense that evokes suspicious actions. They are also shady in the literal sense—their operations are shrouded in darkness. Writers spend money, ever-hopeful, yet are unable to see what is happening behind the scenes.
Fortunately, there are signs to look for to help illuminate your submissions process. Whenever you are considering entering a lit mag contest, check for the list of previous winners. When were the winners announced? Were they announced? Were promises of payment and publication delivered?
Does the journal have a habit of pushing back contest deadlines? Many lit mags do this but they do it one time and one time only, typically extending the contest by about two weeks. If a lit mag repeatedly pushes back a contest deadline, adding weeks or months, that is a problem.
The same applies to lit mags with reading fees, particularly if those fees are steep. When was their most recent issue published? Are they publishing consistently? Or are they open for fee-based submissions while their last issue was published a long time ago? If they have a blog on the site, is it out-of-date?
Of course, sometimes lit mags fall behind. Some magazines are in a state of flux, possibly utter chaos. Their submissions might even remain open while they haven’t been able to put out new issues.
Room Magazine recently announced “a major organizational issue that has affected the magazine’s production schedules.”
What Room has done here is precisely what every lit mag ought to do in such circumstances. Admitting to internal chaos and delays is never fun. Nor is having to apologize to contributors and readers. But doing so is a crucial sign of professionalism and integrity. Such an announcement, however difficult to make, is a show of respect. Even if a lit mag must admit to problems and delays, such transparency builds trust.
This brings me back to Red River Review.
Yes, the magazine put out a statement in response to concerns about their $15 reading fee. Yes, they responded swiftly. It’s good to know the lines of communication are open. It’s also good to know that they will be offering “free submission windows” to accommodate all writers.
However, one line in their statement is troublesome:
Why is this a problem? As I replied:
In other words, it’s not any fee in itself that writers were objecting to. Yes, many writers do object to reading fees, of any amount. But that was not what writers were saying in the comments in this particular case.
We were not questioning “fee-based models” generally. We were questioning a $15-fee-based model, very specifically. We took issue with a fee so high that, should it become normalized, most writers would be barred from submitting to any literary magazines at all.
When Red River Review states that they “understand that not everyone agrees with fee-based models, and that’s okay” they are either missing the point or deliberately obfuscating the situation. To not address the $15 fee in the statement is to mischaracterize the grievances expressed by writers. This is the opposite of transparency.
What are the editors’ intentions here? We cannot know. I’m sure they’re good, though I find some of their decisions and approaches problematic thus far.
Unfortunately, however good their intentions are, a lack of transparency is often the trademark of a lit mag which operates like a scam. In many cases it’s more than lack of transparency. It’s outright gaslighting or deception.
A lit mag I’ve discussed before Dark Poets Club. Here’s the copy from their page about submission fees:
At Dark Poets Club, we charge submission fees. We are not alone. Countless literary magazines, online journals, and poetry platforms do the same. Yet, time and time again, we encounter outrage from individuals who believe they should be able to submit their work without paying a penny and expect a team of people to read it, review it, format it, upload it, and promote it—all at no cost to them.
So, let’s set the record straight.
…Running a website that publishes poetry isn’t just a hobby; it’s a labour-intensive, resource-heavy operation….
Every single one of these tasks require time, effort and money. Expecting all of this to be free isn’t just unrealistic—it’s disrespectful.
Notice how they depict writers as an emotionally-driven irrational mob, full of “outrage” (as opposed to perfectly rational objections) and who “believe they should be able to submit their work without paying a penny…”
Notice how they invert the power-relationship, emphasizing the work that goes into running a lit mag while ignoring the work that goes into writing, also an act that is “labor-intensive” and can be “resource-heavy.”
Notice how they call you “disrespectful” for daring to question this.
Another lit mag that plays similar games is StreetLit, which I discussed last week. One line I did not mention in their letter to writers is this: “Writers complain about reading fees but then they also complain about the lack of cool independent litmags…”
The gaslighting with this one is so strong it practically sets my hair on fire. “[W]riters…complain about the lack of cool independent litmags.”
Really? They do?
Writers complain about a lot of things. And sure, reading fees may be among them. But when was the last time you heard a writer complain about “the lack of cool independent litmags”?
I do not think anyone who has ever looked at the vast landscape of thousands of literary journals has ever uttered the words, You know, the problem with lit mags is that there really is just not enough of them...
At Neon Origami, as I shared last week, their homepage/blog has information about finding the right publishing house for one’s work. Some of the advice is good, such as asking around to learn more about publishing houses, finding out about distribution. However, some of their advice is out of touch with the reality of the publishing landscape:
You have likely heard of the ‘Big Five’ publishers: Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan Publishers, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster. These publishers are highly respected, large, and capable of effectively distributing a wide variety of books. However, these publishers are often more selective about which books they publish and they might not be the right fit for you and your book. Keep that in mind if you are thinking about submitting your manuscript to one of the ‘Big Five’ publishers.
Consider going with a smaller publishing house.
I don’t know any writer in this day and age who is submitting work directly to any of the “big five” publishers. These houses work with literary agents almost exclusively. It seems odd for this blog to omit that information. The only reason I can think of is that they are addressing writers who know little about how the industry works. They are trying to direct you toward their press— “a smaller publishing house.”
A publishing house that posts a blog about the publishing industry and which shares false or misleading information is a big red flag. They should be the experts. They should speak honestly and clearly about the industry. To obfuscate processes is deceptive.
Very long story short, just because a lit mag is not being fully transparent does not mean that it is a scam, per se.
However many lit mags that are not transparent are indeed operating in scammy ways. Lit mags that wish to distinguish themselves from among the shady pack can do so by simply being honest, clear and taking accountability for their own operations and decisions. Most of us in the lit mag world are pretty forgiving. We just want the truth.
It doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
Or is it?
You tell me.
The only thing worse than a lit mag charging a $15 reading fee is a lit mag charging a $15 reading fee while offering no monetary payment.
Becky,
Thank you so much for doing all this work. Not only to identify those lit mags and publishers that are scams, but the ones that tend to abuse of the writer's community and desire to be published.
With that said, I would love to hear about organizations such as WILDsound Writing Festival, with their endless number of entry categories some asking up to $70 per entry. Or Beyond Words Magazine, with also a lot of expensive entries.
So I thank you again for being a beacon, the lighthouse that keep us writers from crashing into the rocks of unscrupulous if not scammy publications and publishers.