Also, if I see mags note that their avg. response time is more than 6 months, I’m less likely to even apply. I’d suspect I’m not alone on that. As far as reading fees, I’m okay with 2,3, 5 dollars. When they start charging 10 and up for short-form work, and the response time isn’t assured, that’s a “No” for me.
Rather than withdraw why not send the piece to another place without withdrawing? If a mag takes too long to read, they can't favor exclusive submissions.
Great subject, Becky. Slow response times are, in my opinion, worse than a rejection. I can respect a rejection, but I can’t respect a six-month wait time. If it takes that long to read the submissions, the editor should do as you suggest: hire more readers or limit the number of submissions accepted. I have twice waited for over a year for pieces I submitted, and I now avoid those journals. Life is too short.
I've waited a decent wait time (per guidelines), followed up with a polite update request, and silence. That's no way to treat people and those get scratched off my list.
Interesting that some of the lit mags that you've mention are pubs where I have published. So I have my own list of mags that have taken over a year and sometime, two years later there's no response. The thing is, some of these magazines, like Fjors Review have been mentioned in Duotrope to be scams, so how do we know is a scam or a real magazine? Others are simply really bad, which I find it to be rather arrogant. Here's my list: Bitter Oleander, Fourteen Hills, LitMag, Litro (even though they bought one of my pieces a few years before), Lit Magazine (part of the New School, taking over 2 years), Oxford American (over a year and a half and no response), Southhampton Review, Western Humanities Review, Guernica Review.
I feel that if we are going to pay their high fees, they need to be more responsive. Also, I wish that Submittable would do a better job policing who uses their portal, since many scams, when you report them to Submittable, they do nothing.
Luis, is Litro charging submission fees now? Yikes! Awhile back, I submitted only one story (in 2021 or maybe in 2022) - - and there was no fee. My piece was featured on a Sunday as the Editor's Pick. Not too long a wait either. What year did they institute a submission fee? And what did Litro do to upset you? * * * * * * FYI: Fjords Review and EIC John Gosslee had the honor of being one of the first scams exposed by FOETRY (dot) com. No doubt you know all about his long list of dirty deeds.
Gary, Wikipedia shows the history of FOETRY (who started it, why, etc.) - - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetry.com. Foetry was a website that exposed fraudulent & unethical practices in poetry contests. It was active from April 1, 2004 - - May 18, 2007; a few glimpses are available via the Wayback Machine. Mr. Cordle's research was solid and revealed how much Fjords Review (for ex) was earning via contest fees & how poet winners were pre-selected by Gosslee - - - among other sleazy practices in the writing community. * * * FYI: John Gosslee edits PANK and Fjords Review, and directs C&R Press. It would be sensible to avoid all three.
I nominated a poem from LIT Magazine for a Rhysling Award. However, the poet is not a member of S.F.P.A. and, for the most part, awards (ahem) will go to the most popular and visible members. All these dues-paying writing organizations are not unlike a high school with its popular kids, jocks, etc.
I sent a piece to Oxford American on a particular theme for an issue that has appeared. Still, I've heard nothing from the magazine and on its submission platform the entry is marked as "in progress."
Nolo, yes, if the scam artists came to the realization that submission fees resulted in NO submissions, then it would change the game. But the gullible "hopefuls" keep all the lit-mag scams alive. #ICYMI Check out Mike's essay, published nine (9!) years ago: "Narrative Magazine Is Our Fault" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . excerpt: Narrative Magazine is an online literary publication with a bland name and a hideous website. They charge a $23 submission fee, which is well above what any other mainstream magazine — including print publications, which have much higher overhead — would generally charge. They also sell a $700 pendant, which looks like a rough draft for a better design that never came.
Yesterday, Narrative announced a $225 book of advice for fiction writers. This latest cash grab made the literary Internet practically explode with outrage, despite the fact that you can pre-order now for the far more reasonable price of $199. .................... (groan) https://medium.com/@mikemeginnis/narrative-magazine-is-our-fault-b15a5fb4599f
Thanks LV,for the heads-up on these bums--Maybe somebody should make a list online--it would save us all so much time [and money for those willing to pay a fee].
Do any writers reading this ever volunteer to be a reader for a lit mag that has published their work? It’s a great way to reduce wait time, give back, and learn a ton about what makes writing work or not work. This is not an us vs them. We’re a community of people who appreciate good writing. Let’s work together to make the system better.
As you pointed out, publications have various reasons for charging a submission fee. I don't think those that do charge have any more obligation to respond in a timely manner than those who don't.
That said, a couple of different factors affect my decision as to whether or not submit:
If a publication has a long wait time (about 6 months or so is my limit), I pass.
I can accept a small fee, but if the fee is too high, its strikes me as opportunism rather the need to cover costs, etc. Pass. But cost/possible reward ratio figures here too, so I don't have a hard limit.
And, if a publication says that if you don't hear from us in [x] time, consider your submission rejected, I generally pass. Not a hard core stance; depends on the publication. But I do think (especially in this age of automation) that authors deserve the courtesy of a response.
Definitely agree that the "if you don't hear from us within x amount of weeks/months" is bullshit. I'm seeing this one more and more, as I'm sure everyone is. It only takes a few seconds to send a form rejection. What it shows is some combination of arrogance and laziness.
"If you don't hear from us in [x] time, consider your submission rejected" translates into English as "We really only accept solicited work. Don't bother."
That is the truth. Sometimes they respond, sometimes they don't. Recently they emailed me and asked me to send the story in a different format. They didn't have to do that.
I used to submit to places that said "If you don't hear from us in X time, consider your submission rejected" but now 9 times out of 10 I pass because it makes my records very untidy. If you can't send out a form rejection...or goodness gracious, if you're using submittable and you can't hit reject in submittable then...oof.
I go the other way-- as long as I don't have to pay--to--play, I don't care if they don't bother sending a kiss-off [though of course I prefer a kiss!]
"We cannot respond individually because we receive hundreds of submissions every day."
Sure, makes sense. But then when I received a rejection is less that 24 hours, I couldn't help but wonder if they actually do read everything. Fun times....
Absolutely! I've stopped submitting to journals that charge anything over $3 or take more than a year to respond and, sadly, this is limiting my options greatly these days. It's immoral and lazy behavior on the part of journals who can and must do better. [And as an editor myself (The Forge Literary Magazine), I know it only takes a modicum of work to offer free submissions and respond quickly.] My chances of getting published are going down, down, down. But, given all the issues in literary publishing, we should all be writing for ourselves or the simple love of writing anyway. If we don't have that anymore, it's time to take a break. Tough to admit but ultimately freeing.
Of course it is! My personal opinion is that a lot of editors are not doing their jobs, and many literary journals are simply coasting on institutional funding, reputation, and lax deadlines. A journal should close up shop if they can't keep up or if they stop prioritizing the writers who keep them in business. And writers shouldn't support those places.
It is NOT right to charge reading fees or submission fees for nothing. In a just world., any turnaround time over 6 months is impardonable disrespect and should result in a return of the fee. If a lit mag cannot wade through its submissions in a more timely fashion, it should shorten its submission period. Anything else is unethical and disrespectful.
Crazy Cat, I used to feel the same way. But even online journals cost money to operate, Submittable takes a cut of each fee, and it seems likely that editors don't habitually pay themselves.
Some journals kindly offer fee-free submission periods, but I usually just pay my $3.00 and . . . wait.
Like everybody else, I find slow response times very frustrating, but I believe it is frequently a result of requiring multiple readers to review work. The fastest magazines I've known are The Penn Review (no idea how their reading system works), The American Journal of Poetry, which Robert Nazarene brilliantly edited, and The Threepenny Review edited by Wendy Lesser, who is breathtakingly fast. Generally, the more readers you introduce into the mix, the longer the process. A good editor can move very quickly, but this also means that editor shouldn't be taken off task by all the other aspects of running a magazine. The American Journal of Poetry was published twice a year. If you're publishing monthly or even quarterly, it gets harder. By the way, high props to those journals like Rattle where the editors read everything themselves. It's far better to wait a bit for the actual editor to read the work submitted than to get a quick rejection from an intern.
As an older writer with limited time left, my perspective on acceptable wait times has changed dramatically. I used to think nothing of waiting 7-10 months for a response from lit mags with and without submission fees. That is something I cannot tolerate any longer, given that submissions are made electronically, communication between editors and writers is made electronically, and in great part, publication is achieved electronically. The advent of email, the internet, and digital publishing technologies has allowed a massive compression of the time needed to communicate and complete many publication-related tasks. So, the current crisis with unacceptably long wait times must be due to things other than insufficient processes for writers to submit work and editors to respond to that work. I think the first of those things is the unfair assumption on the part of lit mags that submitting writers should bear the partial brunt of subsidizing literary magazines through reading/submission fees. Lit mags are not retail establishments. While any sane business owner passes on some of the maintenance costs of a business on to customers through the prices charged for commodities, that is NOT a sustainable model for literary magazines. It seems more and more that lit mags pop up (mostly online) with the assumption that writers will be happy to subsidize magazine costs for the privilege of having somewhere to submit their writing. That, frankly, absolves the founders of lit mags of responsibility for financial planning and financial sustainability. The second of those things is the naive assumption on the part of lit mag founders that it's possible to start and run a lit mag without sufficient staff to be able to process submissions in a timely manner (and by "timely" I mean within at least 12 weeks). If the goal of a lit mag is to attract excellent writers in order to create a respected publication, how is requiring writers to pay submissions fees AND having to wait 7-12 months for a response at all compelling to writers? It isn't. Maybe some writers are willing to tolerate this in exchange for the (very small) chance of being published in a top tier lit mag. But I think over time, many excellent writers realize that that cachet is simply not worth partially subsidizing a lit mag that cannot organize itself efficiently enough to communicate promptly. If the strategies of defined reading periods and submission caps (among others) aren't successful at allowing a lit mag to communicate with writers promptly, then that mag's editorial processes need revising. I have discovered dozens of excellent online lit mags with superb editors outside of the usual top tier that respect writers enough when submission fees are charged to make an effort to make decisions on acceptance/rejection within a few months. Those are the lit mags I support with my submissions and subscriptions.
"While any sane business owner passes on some of the maintenance costs of a business on to customers through the prices charged for commodities, that is NOT a sustainable model for literary magazines. "
This says somewhat indirectly that the lit mag's "customers" are the writers, not he the readers. Yes, in many cases, that seems to be true.
An impressive exegesis, professor! Still, it comes down to how there are myriad lit mags that don't charge fees, respond fairly quickly and produce a format that is of quality and substance [which has no intrinsic correlation with those lit mags considered 'top tier'--by whom? the MFA gang with their propagation of recondite writing?]
I'm glad the issue of solicitation came up. I was hoping it would.
My guess is many "top tier" lit mags solicit or have private conversations leading to shared work and, over time, acceptances.
I expect the General Submissions (aka. slush) are basically seen as needle in a haystack-- "found" emerging writers & that editors/ publishers often feel a little too good about platforming these voices from their place on a pedestal.
As an Editor/Publisher, we shouldn't be in an ivory tower, should should be among The People. There is a lot of gray area, sure.
It makes me sad to think writers are paying (and I have myself) for long lines and a quick glance.
The time taken to review submissions at volume is going to be brief... with that in mind, either more staff, or restructuring, will often be the answer.
Fees should be something of a last resort. If there are fees, it does feel like the lit mag is operating even more so as a business and should find some way to allocate at least a portion of these funds back to contributors.
So much more to say on this subject but I want to hear from others.
Mark, you are one of the best! Whether it is a rejection or acceptance, One Art gets back to the poets who submit work astonishingly quickly. Bravo, and thank you!
I just listened to an interview with Jericho Brown. A New Yorker poetry editor heard him at a reading and "solicited" some work. Brown sent poem after poem in - all rejected for a number of years before one was accepted.
"Paying for long lines and a quick glance" sums it up. Guilty as well of waiting in that line more often than not. Although less and less paying for the "privilege."
Well Mark, there are good and bad apples in every profession-- you're an editor with a conscience-- not every editor has one, as I learned recently when I got 'canceled' by one and another one changed his mind about a poem he had already accepted [I guess the poem declined in health...] But I do not, cannot see fees even as a last resort'--not when there's free email and the post office is still delivering.
I think the cure for waiting a long time is to submit more so you're not waiting- you're just sending things out and not worried about who's NOT getting back to you. that said, if litmags that charge a fee should offer some value and reply back. The only time it's really annoying for me is when the litmag says no simultaneous subs, charges a fee and THEN takes forever a and a day. If I can submit simultaneously I kind of don't care if they never get back to me, because I can just send it somewhere else, and there is no particular shortage of places to send things. If I can't SS, and they don't respond, that = problem.
Winning Writers responds to everyone who enters one of our contests. In the worst case, if they enter a contest on the first day possible, they might have to wait a year for their response, but they will get one. However, Duotrope does not report that we give 100% response. Some of our responses are likely falling into sp@m folders and being missed. This may explain some of the reported super-long response times seen for other publications.
It's not rocket science. If you can't handle the amount of subs you get, then put a lid on it. Turn them off. Limit the amount to what you/staff can handle.
The reading fee thing has found a place in my wee brain along with the old "shipping and handling" charge that used to be included in purchases. "Handling" is such a nebulous term, as is "reading" in this case. "Skimming" perhaps. And are the actual readers... "first" or otherwise... seeing any of that aspiring writer largess?
The lit mags that annoy me the most are the ones that charge their Submittable fee and then sit there for months with their smug "In-Progress" taunts.
I think lit mags that charge a reading fee should respond well within a year. If their current ‘pile’ doesn’t allow that, they should put a cap on submissions until they can. I think it’s only fair for authors who pay to have their work read to get value for their money and actually have their work read.
If they don’t respond in 9 mo., I withdraw. Shouldn’t take longer to make a decision than it does to gestate a baby.
Also, if I see mags note that their avg. response time is more than 6 months, I’m less likely to even apply. I’d suspect I’m not alone on that. As far as reading fees, I’m okay with 2,3, 5 dollars. When they start charging 10 and up for short-form work, and the response time isn’t assured, that’s a “No” for me.
Yeah, but if you paid 5 bucks to say, a 1,000 lit mags, aren't we talking real money here? I am, as that's about 4 months of Social Security for me.
Rather than withdraw why not send the piece to another place without withdrawing? If a mag takes too long to read, they can't favor exclusive submissions.
Amen! It just ain't fair, is it?
Fair point. Mostly if they’re taking too long, I doubt they’re going to respond at all, and it clears the clutter on my Submittable feed.
Well put 🤣
Great subject, Becky. Slow response times are, in my opinion, worse than a rejection. I can respect a rejection, but I can’t respect a six-month wait time. If it takes that long to read the submissions, the editor should do as you suggest: hire more readers or limit the number of submissions accepted. I have twice waited for over a year for pieces I submitted, and I now avoid those journals. Life is too short.
I've waited a decent wait time (per guidelines), followed up with a polite update request, and silence. That's no way to treat people and those get scratched off my list.
Interesting that some of the lit mags that you've mention are pubs where I have published. So I have my own list of mags that have taken over a year and sometime, two years later there's no response. The thing is, some of these magazines, like Fjors Review have been mentioned in Duotrope to be scams, so how do we know is a scam or a real magazine? Others are simply really bad, which I find it to be rather arrogant. Here's my list: Bitter Oleander, Fourteen Hills, LitMag, Litro (even though they bought one of my pieces a few years before), Lit Magazine (part of the New School, taking over 2 years), Oxford American (over a year and a half and no response), Southhampton Review, Western Humanities Review, Guernica Review.
I feel that if we are going to pay their high fees, they need to be more responsive. Also, I wish that Submittable would do a better job policing who uses their portal, since many scams, when you report them to Submittable, they do nothing.
Luis, is Litro charging submission fees now? Yikes! Awhile back, I submitted only one story (in 2021 or maybe in 2022) - - and there was no fee. My piece was featured on a Sunday as the Editor's Pick. Not too long a wait either. What year did they institute a submission fee? And what did Litro do to upset you? * * * * * * FYI: Fjords Review and EIC John Gosslee had the honor of being one of the first scams exposed by FOETRY (dot) com. No doubt you know all about his long list of dirty deeds.
Hi LindaAnn, I was curious about FOETRY but something else came up at that url, do you have a current address?
Gary, Wikipedia shows the history of FOETRY (who started it, why, etc.) - - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetry.com. Foetry was a website that exposed fraudulent & unethical practices in poetry contests. It was active from April 1, 2004 - - May 18, 2007; a few glimpses are available via the Wayback Machine. Mr. Cordle's research was solid and revealed how much Fjords Review (for ex) was earning via contest fees & how poet winners were pre-selected by Gosslee - - - among other sleazy practices in the writing community. * * * FYI: John Gosslee edits PANK and Fjords Review, and directs C&R Press. It would be sensible to avoid all three.
Just a note that LIT had a big backlog post-covid, but they do read, respond, and accept. I had a great experience with that journal.
I nominated a poem from LIT Magazine for a Rhysling Award. However, the poet is not a member of S.F.P.A. and, for the most part, awards (ahem) will go to the most popular and visible members. All these dues-paying writing organizations are not unlike a high school with its popular kids, jocks, etc.
I sent a piece to Oxford American on a particular theme for an issue that has appeared. Still, I've heard nothing from the magazine and on its submission platform the entry is marked as "in progress."
Hopefully Roberta, you'll get a reply this century...
Haha. I'm not holding my breath!
Or maybe Luis, we all just stop paying fees-- and the scam artists will go elsewhere [like robocalls]
Nolo, yes, if the scam artists came to the realization that submission fees resulted in NO submissions, then it would change the game. But the gullible "hopefuls" keep all the lit-mag scams alive. #ICYMI Check out Mike's essay, published nine (9!) years ago: "Narrative Magazine Is Our Fault" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . excerpt: Narrative Magazine is an online literary publication with a bland name and a hideous website. They charge a $23 submission fee, which is well above what any other mainstream magazine — including print publications, which have much higher overhead — would generally charge. They also sell a $700 pendant, which looks like a rough draft for a better design that never came.
Yesterday, Narrative announced a $225 book of advice for fiction writers. This latest cash grab made the literary Internet practically explode with outrage, despite the fact that you can pre-order now for the far more reasonable price of $199. .................... (groan) https://medium.com/@mikemeginnis/narrative-magazine-is-our-fault-b15a5fb4599f
Thanks LV,for the heads-up on these bums--Maybe somebody should make a list online--it would save us all so much time [and money for those willing to pay a fee].
Do any writers reading this ever volunteer to be a reader for a lit mag that has published their work? It’s a great way to reduce wait time, give back, and learn a ton about what makes writing work or not work. This is not an us vs them. We’re a community of people who appreciate good writing. Let’s work together to make the system better.
Yes, Jillian, I volunteer read/edit for a lit mag that's been around going on its 4th decade, never charges fees, and is thoughtfully run.
Isn’t it wonderful to be behind the scenes? It definitely made me a better writer, and witnessing the generosity makes me happy.
As you pointed out, publications have various reasons for charging a submission fee. I don't think those that do charge have any more obligation to respond in a timely manner than those who don't.
That said, a couple of different factors affect my decision as to whether or not submit:
If a publication has a long wait time (about 6 months or so is my limit), I pass.
I can accept a small fee, but if the fee is too high, its strikes me as opportunism rather the need to cover costs, etc. Pass. But cost/possible reward ratio figures here too, so I don't have a hard limit.
And, if a publication says that if you don't hear from us in [x] time, consider your submission rejected, I generally pass. Not a hard core stance; depends on the publication. But I do think (especially in this age of automation) that authors deserve the courtesy of a response.
Definitely agree that the "if you don't hear from us within x amount of weeks/months" is bullshit. I'm seeing this one more and more, as I'm sure everyone is. It only takes a few seconds to send a form rejection. What it shows is some combination of arrogance and laziness.
In my experience, those that don't promise a response, generally don't charge fees. The New Yorker being a case in point.
"If you don't hear from us in [x] time, consider your submission rejected" translates into English as "We really only accept solicited work. Don't bother."
Or we can't be bothered with having a form reject email ready to go because we don't give a shit.
Lit mags who can't bother with reject emails go on my spreadsheet of 'lit mags to avoid at all costs'.
That's the New Yorker. Yet, they can be nice as well and send you remarkable rejection letters.
That is the truth. Sometimes they respond, sometimes they don't. Recently they emailed me and asked me to send the story in a different format. They didn't have to do that.
Yes, I was thinking of them when I mentioned exceptions. I don't want to be hard core about it, like to look at the pros and cons.
If a magazine has a long wait time, I send the same piece to other places.
I used to submit to places that said "If you don't hear from us in X time, consider your submission rejected" but now 9 times out of 10 I pass because it makes my records very untidy. If you can't send out a form rejection...or goodness gracious, if you're using submittable and you can't hit reject in submittable then...oof.
I go the other way-- as long as I don't have to pay--to--play, I don't care if they don't bother sending a kiss-off [though of course I prefer a kiss!]
Sort of related if I may:
I recently submitted to a publication that says:
"We cannot respond individually because we receive hundreds of submissions every day."
Sure, makes sense. But then when I received a rejection is less that 24 hours, I couldn't help but wonder if they actually do read everything. Fun times....
'we receive hundreds of submissions every day'? I'd be asking for the evidence.
If I had to guess they had an auto-filter that rejected based on format, guidelines or something else etc. when it comes back that fast
Absolutely! I've stopped submitting to journals that charge anything over $3 or take more than a year to respond and, sadly, this is limiting my options greatly these days. It's immoral and lazy behavior on the part of journals who can and must do better. [And as an editor myself (The Forge Literary Magazine), I know it only takes a modicum of work to offer free submissions and respond quickly.] My chances of getting published are going down, down, down. But, given all the issues in literary publishing, we should all be writing for ourselves or the simple love of writing anyway. If we don't have that anymore, it's time to take a break. Tough to admit but ultimately freeing.
I thank you, Sommer, for validating that providing fees submissions and quick responses is doable.
Of course it is! My personal opinion is that a lot of editors are not doing their jobs, and many literary journals are simply coasting on institutional funding, reputation, and lax deadlines. A journal should close up shop if they can't keep up or if they stop prioritizing the writers who keep them in business. And writers shouldn't support those places.
It is NOT right to charge reading fees or submission fees for nothing. In a just world., any turnaround time over 6 months is impardonable disrespect and should result in a return of the fee. If a lit mag cannot wade through its submissions in a more timely fashion, it should shorten its submission period. Anything else is unethical and disrespectful.
THIS TIMES A GAZILLION.
If you can charge a fee, then you can well fucking pay your contributors.
Crazy Cat, I used to feel the same way. But even online journals cost money to operate, Submittable takes a cut of each fee, and it seems likely that editors don't habitually pay themselves.
Some journals kindly offer fee-free submission periods, but I usually just pay my $3.00 and . . . wait.
It costs writers money to operate too!
agreed
I go a step further--I don't think it'd EVER right to charge a fee-- especially as many, many, many lit mags don't [even some that use Submittable]
Like everybody else, I find slow response times very frustrating, but I believe it is frequently a result of requiring multiple readers to review work. The fastest magazines I've known are The Penn Review (no idea how their reading system works), The American Journal of Poetry, which Robert Nazarene brilliantly edited, and The Threepenny Review edited by Wendy Lesser, who is breathtakingly fast. Generally, the more readers you introduce into the mix, the longer the process. A good editor can move very quickly, but this also means that editor shouldn't be taken off task by all the other aspects of running a magazine. The American Journal of Poetry was published twice a year. If you're publishing monthly or even quarterly, it gets harder. By the way, high props to those journals like Rattle where the editors read everything themselves. It's far better to wait a bit for the actual editor to read the work submitted than to get a quick rejection from an intern.
That's true about Threepenny Review. I can respect that they don't like simultaneous submissions because Wendy Lesser is so fast in her response.
As an older writer with limited time left, my perspective on acceptable wait times has changed dramatically. I used to think nothing of waiting 7-10 months for a response from lit mags with and without submission fees. That is something I cannot tolerate any longer, given that submissions are made electronically, communication between editors and writers is made electronically, and in great part, publication is achieved electronically. The advent of email, the internet, and digital publishing technologies has allowed a massive compression of the time needed to communicate and complete many publication-related tasks. So, the current crisis with unacceptably long wait times must be due to things other than insufficient processes for writers to submit work and editors to respond to that work. I think the first of those things is the unfair assumption on the part of lit mags that submitting writers should bear the partial brunt of subsidizing literary magazines through reading/submission fees. Lit mags are not retail establishments. While any sane business owner passes on some of the maintenance costs of a business on to customers through the prices charged for commodities, that is NOT a sustainable model for literary magazines. It seems more and more that lit mags pop up (mostly online) with the assumption that writers will be happy to subsidize magazine costs for the privilege of having somewhere to submit their writing. That, frankly, absolves the founders of lit mags of responsibility for financial planning and financial sustainability. The second of those things is the naive assumption on the part of lit mag founders that it's possible to start and run a lit mag without sufficient staff to be able to process submissions in a timely manner (and by "timely" I mean within at least 12 weeks). If the goal of a lit mag is to attract excellent writers in order to create a respected publication, how is requiring writers to pay submissions fees AND having to wait 7-12 months for a response at all compelling to writers? It isn't. Maybe some writers are willing to tolerate this in exchange for the (very small) chance of being published in a top tier lit mag. But I think over time, many excellent writers realize that that cachet is simply not worth partially subsidizing a lit mag that cannot organize itself efficiently enough to communicate promptly. If the strategies of defined reading periods and submission caps (among others) aren't successful at allowing a lit mag to communicate with writers promptly, then that mag's editorial processes need revising. I have discovered dozens of excellent online lit mags with superb editors outside of the usual top tier that respect writers enough when submission fees are charged to make an effort to make decisions on acceptance/rejection within a few months. Those are the lit mags I support with my submissions and subscriptions.
I concur. I found this sentence quite telling:
"While any sane business owner passes on some of the maintenance costs of a business on to customers through the prices charged for commodities, that is NOT a sustainable model for literary magazines. "
This says somewhat indirectly that the lit mag's "customers" are the writers, not he the readers. Yes, in many cases, that seems to be true.
An impressive exegesis, professor! Still, it comes down to how there are myriad lit mags that don't charge fees, respond fairly quickly and produce a format that is of quality and substance [which has no intrinsic correlation with those lit mags considered 'top tier'--by whom? the MFA gang with their propagation of recondite writing?]
I'm glad the issue of solicitation came up. I was hoping it would.
My guess is many "top tier" lit mags solicit or have private conversations leading to shared work and, over time, acceptances.
I expect the General Submissions (aka. slush) are basically seen as needle in a haystack-- "found" emerging writers & that editors/ publishers often feel a little too good about platforming these voices from their place on a pedestal.
As an Editor/Publisher, we shouldn't be in an ivory tower, should should be among The People. There is a lot of gray area, sure.
It makes me sad to think writers are paying (and I have myself) for long lines and a quick glance.
The time taken to review submissions at volume is going to be brief... with that in mind, either more staff, or restructuring, will often be the answer.
Fees should be something of a last resort. If there are fees, it does feel like the lit mag is operating even more so as a business and should find some way to allocate at least a portion of these funds back to contributors.
So much more to say on this subject but I want to hear from others.
Mark, you are one of the best! Whether it is a rejection or acceptance, One Art gets back to the poets who submit work astonishingly quickly. Bravo, and thank you!
I just listened to an interview with Jericho Brown. A New Yorker poetry editor heard him at a reading and "solicited" some work. Brown sent poem after poem in - all rejected for a number of years before one was accepted.
Nice, this is what we want to hear!
"Paying for long lines and a quick glance" sums it up. Guilty as well of waiting in that line more often than not. Although less and less paying for the "privilege."
Well Mark, there are good and bad apples in every profession-- you're an editor with a conscience-- not every editor has one, as I learned recently when I got 'canceled' by one and another one changed his mind about a poem he had already accepted [I guess the poem declined in health...] But I do not, cannot see fees even as a last resort'--not when there's free email and the post office is still delivering.
I think the cure for waiting a long time is to submit more so you're not waiting- you're just sending things out and not worried about who's NOT getting back to you. that said, if litmags that charge a fee should offer some value and reply back. The only time it's really annoying for me is when the litmag says no simultaneous subs, charges a fee and THEN takes forever a and a day. If I can submit simultaneously I kind of don't care if they never get back to me, because I can just send it somewhere else, and there is no particular shortage of places to send things. If I can't SS, and they don't respond, that = problem.
Winning Writers responds to everyone who enters one of our contests. In the worst case, if they enter a contest on the first day possible, they might have to wait a year for their response, but they will get one. However, Duotrope does not report that we give 100% response. Some of our responses are likely falling into sp@m folders and being missed. This may explain some of the reported super-long response times seen for other publications.
Two words - SUBMISSIONS CAP.
It's not rocket science. If you can't handle the amount of subs you get, then put a lid on it. Turn them off. Limit the amount to what you/staff can handle.
Just my 2 cents....
The reading fee thing has found a place in my wee brain along with the old "shipping and handling" charge that used to be included in purchases. "Handling" is such a nebulous term, as is "reading" in this case. "Skimming" perhaps. And are the actual readers... "first" or otherwise... seeing any of that aspiring writer largess?
The lit mags that annoy me the most are the ones that charge their Submittable fee and then sit there for months with their smug "In-Progress" taunts.
Yeah, I wonder about that too-- but if you don't pay a fee, you tend not to give a damn-- just keep on sendin' 'em out!
I think lit mags that charge a reading fee should respond well within a year. If their current ‘pile’ doesn’t allow that, they should put a cap on submissions until they can. I think it’s only fair for authors who pay to have their work read to get value for their money and actually have their work read.