Dead on with this piece. After 40 years of rejection slips, I write on, boat against the current of an indifferent publishing world. If I stopped to figure the monetary losses involved in my passion, I would only get depressed, so I don't bother. It's not about money anyway. It's about pursuing a passion, a dream. Writing is like eating for me--I have to do it to stay alive. The joy is in the pursuit, and I have to trust that I'm getting better at my craft. Best wishes to everyone else on this boat with me. https://www.peaceableman.com/post/four-reasons-to-keep-your-dreams-alive-and-they-have-nothing-to-do-with-money
Same here--the 40 year ride. I don't think of the publishing world as indifferent but as a sector overwhelmed by supply. Many thanks for your good wishes to all of us who keep trying!
Good point. Too much supply (i.e., lots of good writers), not enough demand in terms of dedicated readers. Editors and agents are overwhelmed. I should have been a potato farmer. :)
I also wonder to what extent the proliferation of MFA programs has vastly increased the flow of submissions to journals. Twenty years ago I received more personalized rejections. I like to think that my writing continues to improve but I don't see that reflected in the responses.
Me neither. I think you're right about the impact of MFA programs on submission volumes. It means the stuff being submitted likely is better quality, albeit formulaic, perhaps. It's important to keep in mind also that many of these lit magazines are published by the MFA programs themselves, and the MFA candidates are editing and reviewing submissions. It's an inside game.
OMG, you hit it! I've been suspecting that as one who found himself a published poet late in life-- but I remember from school when we were taught what good, meaningful poetry is-- now it's all about 'show don't tell' but what the hell are they showing with verbiage that goes nowhere and metaphors--when they can come up with them-- that breakdown under the strain, the weight of absurdity? So much crap calling itself art--not just in poetry but music, films, fiction, art.
Some of the MFA program mags have faculty editors (at least formally). Sometimes I tell myself that my work will get a better read when this is the case. Possibly an illusion.
Couldn’t agree more, James. Writing and publishing is the air we breathe. If it’s not a passion, you should probably be doing something else with your time.
I dislike "for the love" publications on principle because if you can't afford to pay your writers, you shouldn't be running a magazine. It might be your passion, but it runs mostly on the (unpaid) passion of writers. I really dislike non-paying publications that require reading fees. I've been a professional writer for 35 years, and this kind of financial abuse is appalling.
If I'm going to be paying a reading fee, the publication had better be one I want to brag about being in.
Yes. I just told an Editor I would not be pitching them again because the process involved two (two!) rounds of debate regarding the subject, then a "review" of my first 3 paragraphs before a one-line email, "this is too formal in tone" - for an internet-only, non-paying outlet. Wow.
That's probably a very good way to weed out markets (loosely - because if they don't pay, they're not markets). Thanks for that! When I think about the higher-end publications I've been in, it's true that the submission process was simple.
I am also an academic and a creative writer, and I know just what A. Louise Cole is talking about! I would add a couple of things. I find it unprofessional, discourteous, dismissive, and even suspect (as in, did anyone even READ the piece I sent!?) when the boilerplate rejection notice does not address me by name and/or title, nor is it signed with anyone's name. The failure of appropriate address is a matter of respect. The failure of appropriate signature is a matter of evading responsibility or accountability. Much of this is now handled through online submission software, but it can be set to allow for such courtesies. And (pandemic delays or unforeseen exigencies to one side), the management of a literary journal ought to be accountable to a definite timetable: 6 months at the most, to reply to a submission. (Poems and short stories are not academic research, which takes more time to read and evaluate. As Cole notes, creative writing is a much more subjective matter, and can be done more quickly.) If literary journals are receiving more submissions than they can responsibly process, they should cap the number of submissions and close when the cap is reached, making sure that each person submitting receives a timely, personalized response. By "personalized," I mean, at least acknowledging the name of the person, the title of their work, and perhaps a couple of sentences (even if boilerplate) that indicate the reason for rejection, if not a more thoughtful reading of the work. This system is broken!
Some lit mags don’t even notify the poet that their entry did not win, place, or show. Recently a lit mag whose contest I entered published the winning, finalist, and honorable mention poems without notifying and THANKING each entrant for the financial support of their entry fees. I would never have known the contest was even over had I not had a regular submission accepted. All I got was a “free” .pdf of the issue. Meanwhile my entry remains in Submittable as “received,” never moved to “in progress “ and I wonder if it was actually read.
I agree that capping submissions is a fair way to keep the workload manageable for volunteer editors. I’ve been seeing more of that. Maybe it will lead to more of the respectful behavior you suggest!
While you make good points, I’d like to counter that the economy is different in academia. By way of example, my sister is a full professor at a university and she does these laborious unpaid peer journal reviews as a duty to her profession. She also gets paid close to $200k a year by her university. In addition to peer reviews for publishers, she edits peer journals, labor that counts toward her teaching load. In contrast, I run small literary magazine for which I work, unpaid, for as much as 30 hours a week (sometimes less of course.) I do all the admin, web design, and serve as chief editor. All of the editors are volunteers. For the first seven years I supplemented the magazine’s budget with my personal funds (i.e., paying costs for hosting, etc.) Now the magazine is self-supporting, but the projects we developed to support taken even more of my time. I am doing all of the work as a volunteer. That’s why we charge a nominal submission fee. If the magazine were supported by a university (or if we were being compensated for all of our labor) it would be a different situation.
I’m also a writer who pays submission fees to magazines. Before I had the experience I now have as an editor I might have felt differently about paying fees.
I love every word and if I could like this twice I would. Those few of us who become well-known and celebrated represent, in a sense, all of those like yourself and the rest of us who do this as a passion. Academics like to see themselves as being in the same boat but the truth is they are (well) remunerated for all the peer reviewing, etc. I vividly remember an academic friend complaining at "having" to do peer reviews, marking, etc. He was probably earning around $175k and a solid pension. Whereas most of us will never see much financial reward from our work. Thanks for a great post.
I was talking to the editor of the Missouri Review a few years back. He told me the admin told him he should charge $10 or $15 per submission. I think they are "supported" by the university but are usually treated like red-headed stepchildren.
I've been following my "vow" since we last discussed the financial issues, and have probably saved a week's worth of grocery money (these days, not just pennies). I am only submitting to fee-free lit mags, and though I believe my work is stronger than ever, have received more rejections in the past 5 months than ever—maybe I'm submitting more, not sure (and don't want to take the time to study my submittable page). But I am not deterred. I'm done paying.
Stay with it Carol--if everyone did, the mercenary lot would have to cave in-- and no, it is not logical that you would get more rejections because you aren't paying-- these things go in cycles.
There seems to be circulating in the ether about rejections. This has become my writers' group #1 preoccupation at the moment, and despite the fact I've had some work published I've stopped submitting to paying mags or comps after so many rejections. I simply can't afford to thrown good money after bad. My Substack tackled this just last week (excuse the shameless self-promotion but I'm trying to build my readership) https://abbys.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-writing-4
Thank you! And I'm not always that downbeat if you look at some of my other stuff. I've subscribed to you, and I'm looking forward to reading more of your stuff and exploring the archives. We struggling writers have to stick together.
Not being familiar with substacks and being a writer, can you tell me whether it's difficult to set it up. I get emails to join but beyond that, not much.
I found a it far easier to set up than my website was. I like exploring other writers via the Substack app. My favorite are discussions like this that get going sometimes.
I subscribed too and look forward to reading your posts! Please give mine a look--seems like we might be covering some of the same turf, from many meridians away. https://kellylenox.substack.com/
I just subscribed and from a brief look at your posts, I know I'm going to like your Substack. It's lovely to be submerged in so much good writing, like sinking into a hot bath on a cold day, or dunking under the surface of a river on a hot one.
I couldn't agree more. I'm also an academic, and everything you've written is also true in the sciences. (I am professor emeritus at UC Berkeley in Bioengineering.) As a retiree, I'm still writing, albeit creative works (poetry, essays, memoir, fiction), instead of grant proposals and scientific papers. My experience with litmags mirrors yours. I'm certainly not making any money at this. Fortunately, that doesn't matter at this point; I'm in a financial position to afford this expensive hobby.
But what impact does this kind of financial structure have on new writers, and in consequence on literature? Few can afford this approach (of submitting to many small presses) and will fall away. The end result will be a much less interesting world, literarily.
Since a scientist/academic/poet friend introduced me to Erika's substack, I am paying almost no fees and have earned more money for my stories and essays. I use Erika's fee-free/paid markets first, and have encountered some amazing international magazines I never knew existed. I do find that the higher ranked magazines, fee-charging or not, are more likely to send me helpful, even enthusiastic feedback rather than the dreaded "f-you and die" form rejections. I call them that to remove the sting.
We are so used to "free" internet services that we forget that in analogue days, writers had to pay postage, printing costs, and with their time to submit writing to journals. Also, since there were no simultaneous submissions or on-line journals, there were fewer opportunities to send work in.
That writer you mention who submitted her or his work 75 times could not have conceivably done that "back in the day." There were likely not 75 outlets for the work AND it would have taken dozens of years - with turnaround time often being four to six months.
So here we are, reaping the convenience and opportunity of the internet and widespread opportunities for public electronic and print curation and not taking into account that it has costs that someone must bear.
As Louise points out, this IS fraught and gives writers with more means a leg up in the shear numbers of submissions that can afford. But I suspect this has always been the case — that most writers have negative "returns" on their work.
******(I'd be interested for those who were active back in the pre-internet days to respond to this to confirm or deny my thesis here.)
This is NOT a justification for charging submission fees. If it were, then charging for submission would be general practice amongst all periodicals instead of being limited exclusively to literary magazines.
It's nothing more than gatekeeping, plain and simple...and I WAS submitting not only in pre-internet days but pre-computer days.
As I continue to point out...there are small genre magazines that don't charge for submissions. Some are even literary in tone. Nope, it's all about the gatekeeping.
The issue about lit mags is that they exist in majority without profit, subsidy or patronage. Academic journals and the few for-profit magazines that still exist have at least one of the three.
Ask an editor of 90% of lit mags about their economic model. I bet you would find that many subsidize the costs out of their own pockets and that most don't earn a penny from their labors. Those $3 fees add up, for sure, for us writers. And they limit who can submit to multiple journals. This is problematic (and yes, a firm of "gatekeeping). But it is not the intent of editors who just love literature and want to be part of raising up the practice of writing.
Except that your argument does not hold because there are many, many small genre magazines who fit that same model as lit mags. They don't charge fees, and if anything...there are so many more little literary-type genre mags than there are lit mags. Again, if lit mags are so pressed, and they don't have the readership...should they continue to exist?
Yes, Joyce, you' re right. there are still 100's of no-fee lit mags---and some even give you a free print issue, like the one I got last week from Two Thirds North--sent to the U.S. from Sweden !
I confirmed your thesis in my previous replies. I don't recall so many lit mags paying cash for publication before they started charging fees to cover their expenses. When they did pay cash it was because they got a grant that enabled them to do so.
I don't mind not being paid for short stories, in general. Nice when it happens, of course.
I don't submit to fee-charging mags, or most competitions, anymore. They make it plain in their subs guidelines that they are biased in certain directions, so it's just not worth it if the prospective writer or their work are not in the favoured groups. I don't actually care so much about that, as of course they are entitled to publish what they want, and these days there are hundreds of magazines out there that I can submit to. I'll probably never read any of them if they are THAT biased. I think it's not great for literature in general, though, if their only readers are going to be people who are biased in the same way.
I also don't mind critiques by magazines' readers, in theory, but I have never paid for one and am never going to. Most of those I have been given have been from people whose only qualification to critique seems to be that they attended some writers' course and stuck to the 5 narrow rules they learned there, and have been more or less worthless... except to teach me the valuable lesson of never going for the paid critique option.
'Please, sir, take my turnips and sell them in your shop.'
'Sorry, no-one buys turnips these days.'
'But they're good for you. And besides, I can't help growing turnips.'
'Tell you what I'll do. If you show me a good enough turnip, and pay me to put it in my shop, I'll tell everyone that comes to my shop that this fine turnip was grown by you.'
'So, when you sell it, I'll get some of the money?'
'Sir, I told you, no-one buys turnips these days.'
Great article Louise! Welcome to my world and it is not an easy one. With so many lit magazines publishing “only the best of the best of the very best”, it is almost impossible for anyone to make living today as a writer, let alone get published. I think it helps to establish some personal rules for submissions (ex. simultaneous submissions, checking magazines acceptance rates, no more than two rejections per magazine, etc.). And I like your suggestions. too Good luck to you.
Dear A. Louise Cole, we really must keep in touch. I love the lucid tone of your essay and concur with all of it. For my part, I keep spreadsheets on all my translation and original writing submissions and there is a column for cost. I feel compelled to keep data on the submissions process for the sake of my mental health, yes, but also to have an objective cost-gain analysis available to me. This becomes important at the moment of querying a book of short stories in translation to a publisher, for example: I want to be able to know (perhaps to say), it cost me this much money to promote this author. I wish I had been keeping track of how much TIME I have spent, too! Especially in the literary translation field, that hidden expense is off the charts.
Dead on with this piece. After 40 years of rejection slips, I write on, boat against the current of an indifferent publishing world. If I stopped to figure the monetary losses involved in my passion, I would only get depressed, so I don't bother. It's not about money anyway. It's about pursuing a passion, a dream. Writing is like eating for me--I have to do it to stay alive. The joy is in the pursuit, and I have to trust that I'm getting better at my craft. Best wishes to everyone else on this boat with me. https://www.peaceableman.com/post/four-reasons-to-keep-your-dreams-alive-and-they-have-nothing-to-do-with-money
You're right James--writing is the only way we can reveal our souls to those we have never met--and to ourselves I suppose.
Same here--the 40 year ride. I don't think of the publishing world as indifferent but as a sector overwhelmed by supply. Many thanks for your good wishes to all of us who keep trying!
Good point. Too much supply (i.e., lots of good writers), not enough demand in terms of dedicated readers. Editors and agents are overwhelmed. I should have been a potato farmer. :)
I also wonder to what extent the proliferation of MFA programs has vastly increased the flow of submissions to journals. Twenty years ago I received more personalized rejections. I like to think that my writing continues to improve but I don't see that reflected in the responses.
Me neither. I think you're right about the impact of MFA programs on submission volumes. It means the stuff being submitted likely is better quality, albeit formulaic, perhaps. It's important to keep in mind also that many of these lit magazines are published by the MFA programs themselves, and the MFA candidates are editing and reviewing submissions. It's an inside game.
OMG, you hit it! I've been suspecting that as one who found himself a published poet late in life-- but I remember from school when we were taught what good, meaningful poetry is-- now it's all about 'show don't tell' but what the hell are they showing with verbiage that goes nowhere and metaphors--when they can come up with them-- that breakdown under the strain, the weight of absurdity? So much crap calling itself art--not just in poetry but music, films, fiction, art.
I agree, well put...an inside game
Some of the MFA program mags have faculty editors (at least formally). Sometimes I tell myself that my work will get a better read when this is the case. Possibly an illusion.
Couldn’t agree more, James. Writing and publishing is the air we breathe. If it’s not a passion, you should probably be doing something else with your time.
I want to pursue my passion AND get paid. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I dislike "for the love" publications on principle because if you can't afford to pay your writers, you shouldn't be running a magazine. It might be your passion, but it runs mostly on the (unpaid) passion of writers. I really dislike non-paying publications that require reading fees. I've been a professional writer for 35 years, and this kind of financial abuse is appalling.
If I'm going to be paying a reading fee, the publication had better be one I want to brag about being in.
Yes. I just told an Editor I would not be pitching them again because the process involved two (two!) rounds of debate regarding the subject, then a "review" of my first 3 paragraphs before a one-line email, "this is too formal in tone" - for an internet-only, non-paying outlet. Wow.
My generalization is that the more complex the submission process, means that the periodical is less prestigious with a more limited reach.
A very useful generalisation - and possibly in fact a rock-solid conclusion to draw. Thank you.
That's probably a very good way to weed out markets (loosely - because if they don't pay, they're not markets). Thanks for that! When I think about the higher-end publications I've been in, it's true that the submission process was simple.
I am also an academic and a creative writer, and I know just what A. Louise Cole is talking about! I would add a couple of things. I find it unprofessional, discourteous, dismissive, and even suspect (as in, did anyone even READ the piece I sent!?) when the boilerplate rejection notice does not address me by name and/or title, nor is it signed with anyone's name. The failure of appropriate address is a matter of respect. The failure of appropriate signature is a matter of evading responsibility or accountability. Much of this is now handled through online submission software, but it can be set to allow for such courtesies. And (pandemic delays or unforeseen exigencies to one side), the management of a literary journal ought to be accountable to a definite timetable: 6 months at the most, to reply to a submission. (Poems and short stories are not academic research, which takes more time to read and evaluate. As Cole notes, creative writing is a much more subjective matter, and can be done more quickly.) If literary journals are receiving more submissions than they can responsibly process, they should cap the number of submissions and close when the cap is reached, making sure that each person submitting receives a timely, personalized response. By "personalized," I mean, at least acknowledging the name of the person, the title of their work, and perhaps a couple of sentences (even if boilerplate) that indicate the reason for rejection, if not a more thoughtful reading of the work. This system is broken!
Some lit mags don’t even notify the poet that their entry did not win, place, or show. Recently a lit mag whose contest I entered published the winning, finalist, and honorable mention poems without notifying and THANKING each entrant for the financial support of their entry fees. I would never have known the contest was even over had I not had a regular submission accepted. All I got was a “free” .pdf of the issue. Meanwhile my entry remains in Submittable as “received,” never moved to “in progress “ and I wonder if it was actually read.
Please put those rascals on blast. They'll be less likely to do that again if they know that the information is being shared.
I agree that capping submissions is a fair way to keep the workload manageable for volunteer editors. I’ve been seeing more of that. Maybe it will lead to more of the respectful behavior you suggest!
While you make good points, I’d like to counter that the economy is different in academia. By way of example, my sister is a full professor at a university and she does these laborious unpaid peer journal reviews as a duty to her profession. She also gets paid close to $200k a year by her university. In addition to peer reviews for publishers, she edits peer journals, labor that counts toward her teaching load. In contrast, I run small literary magazine for which I work, unpaid, for as much as 30 hours a week (sometimes less of course.) I do all the admin, web design, and serve as chief editor. All of the editors are volunteers. For the first seven years I supplemented the magazine’s budget with my personal funds (i.e., paying costs for hosting, etc.) Now the magazine is self-supporting, but the projects we developed to support taken even more of my time. I am doing all of the work as a volunteer. That’s why we charge a nominal submission fee. If the magazine were supported by a university (or if we were being compensated for all of our labor) it would be a different situation.
I’m also a writer who pays submission fees to magazines. Before I had the experience I now have as an editor I might have felt differently about paying fees.
I love every word and if I could like this twice I would. Those few of us who become well-known and celebrated represent, in a sense, all of those like yourself and the rest of us who do this as a passion. Academics like to see themselves as being in the same boat but the truth is they are (well) remunerated for all the peer reviewing, etc. I vividly remember an academic friend complaining at "having" to do peer reviews, marking, etc. He was probably earning around $175k and a solid pension. Whereas most of us will never see much financial reward from our work. Thanks for a great post.
Many university-supported mags charge a fee.
I was talking to the editor of the Missouri Review a few years back. He told me the admin told him he should charge $10 or $15 per submission. I think they are "supported" by the university but are usually treated like red-headed stepchildren.
Yes-- and they are funded and often have paid employees.
I've been following my "vow" since we last discussed the financial issues, and have probably saved a week's worth of grocery money (these days, not just pennies). I am only submitting to fee-free lit mags, and though I believe my work is stronger than ever, have received more rejections in the past 5 months than ever—maybe I'm submitting more, not sure (and don't want to take the time to study my submittable page). But I am not deterred. I'm done paying.
I think the competition is greater for paying mags, so there’s that. Keep it up!
Stay with it Carol--if everyone did, the mercenary lot would have to cave in-- and no, it is not logical that you would get more rejections because you aren't paying-- these things go in cycles.
The timing of this article couldn't have been more perfect. Your insight and comments, to me, were spot on. Thank you for sharing.
There seems to be circulating in the ether about rejections. This has become my writers' group #1 preoccupation at the moment, and despite the fact I've had some work published I've stopped submitting to paying mags or comps after so many rejections. I simply can't afford to thrown good money after bad. My Substack tackled this just last week (excuse the shameless self-promotion but I'm trying to build my readership) https://abbys.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-writing-4
I subscribed Abby. My substack is a little more upbeat, but we all have our downs, lol - https://meproctor.substack.com
Thank you! And I'm not always that downbeat if you look at some of my other stuff. I've subscribed to you, and I'm looking forward to reading more of your stuff and exploring the archives. We struggling writers have to stick together.
Not being familiar with substacks and being a writer, can you tell me whether it's difficult to set it up. I get emails to join but beyond that, not much.
I found a it far easier to set up than my website was. I like exploring other writers via the Substack app. My favorite are discussions like this that get going sometimes.
I subscribed too and look forward to reading your posts! Please give mine a look--seems like we might be covering some of the same turf, from many meridians away. https://kellylenox.substack.com/
I just subscribed and from a brief look at your posts, I know I'm going to like your Substack. It's lovely to be submerged in so much good writing, like sinking into a hot bath on a cold day, or dunking under the surface of a river on a hot one.
I’m honored! And agree wholeheartedly about enjoying the quality--and diversity--of writing here.
Thanks Abby!
I couldn't agree more. I'm also an academic, and everything you've written is also true in the sciences. (I am professor emeritus at UC Berkeley in Bioengineering.) As a retiree, I'm still writing, albeit creative works (poetry, essays, memoir, fiction), instead of grant proposals and scientific papers. My experience with litmags mirrors yours. I'm certainly not making any money at this. Fortunately, that doesn't matter at this point; I'm in a financial position to afford this expensive hobby.
But what impact does this kind of financial structure have on new writers, and in consequence on literature? Few can afford this approach (of submitting to many small presses) and will fall away. The end result will be a much less interesting world, literarily.
Much that you're written here resonates. I hope that you've (perhaps?) noted Becky's links over time to my own Substack newsletter (which you can also find through my profile here), which curates fee-free calls and competitions that *also* pay for winning/published work. I've also shared some similar observations in this piece: https://www.awpwriter.org/magazine_media/writers_notebook_view/61/making_poetry_pay_five_ways_to_increase_your_poetry_income.
Since a scientist/academic/poet friend introduced me to Erika's substack, I am paying almost no fees and have earned more money for my stories and essays. I use Erika's fee-free/paid markets first, and have encountered some amazing international magazines I never knew existed. I do find that the higher ranked magazines, fee-charging or not, are more likely to send me helpful, even enthusiastic feedback rather than the dreaded "f-you and die" form rejections. I call them that to remove the sting.
We are so used to "free" internet services that we forget that in analogue days, writers had to pay postage, printing costs, and with their time to submit writing to journals. Also, since there were no simultaneous submissions or on-line journals, there were fewer opportunities to send work in.
That writer you mention who submitted her or his work 75 times could not have conceivably done that "back in the day." There were likely not 75 outlets for the work AND it would have taken dozens of years - with turnaround time often being four to six months.
So here we are, reaping the convenience and opportunity of the internet and widespread opportunities for public electronic and print curation and not taking into account that it has costs that someone must bear.
As Louise points out, this IS fraught and gives writers with more means a leg up in the shear numbers of submissions that can afford. But I suspect this has always been the case — that most writers have negative "returns" on their work.
******(I'd be interested for those who were active back in the pre-internet days to respond to this to confirm or deny my thesis here.)
This is NOT a justification for charging submission fees. If it were, then charging for submission would be general practice amongst all periodicals instead of being limited exclusively to literary magazines.
It's nothing more than gatekeeping, plain and simple...and I WAS submitting not only in pre-internet days but pre-computer days.
As I continue to point out...there are small genre magazines that don't charge for submissions. Some are even literary in tone. Nope, it's all about the gatekeeping.
The issue about lit mags is that they exist in majority without profit, subsidy or patronage. Academic journals and the few for-profit magazines that still exist have at least one of the three.
Ask an editor of 90% of lit mags about their economic model. I bet you would find that many subsidize the costs out of their own pockets and that most don't earn a penny from their labors. Those $3 fees add up, for sure, for us writers. And they limit who can submit to multiple journals. This is problematic (and yes, a firm of "gatekeeping). But it is not the intent of editors who just love literature and want to be part of raising up the practice of writing.
Except that your argument does not hold because there are many, many small genre magazines who fit that same model as lit mags. They don't charge fees, and if anything...there are so many more little literary-type genre mags than there are lit mags. Again, if lit mags are so pressed, and they don't have the readership...should they continue to exist?
Yes, Joyce, you' re right. there are still 100's of no-fee lit mags---and some even give you a free print issue, like the one I got last week from Two Thirds North--sent to the U.S. from Sweden !
If a genre cannot exist without taxing its practitioners...should it continue to exist?
I almost agree. Topic worth a full article/
I confirmed your thesis in my previous replies. I don't recall so many lit mags paying cash for publication before they started charging fees to cover their expenses. When they did pay cash it was because they got a grant that enabled them to do so.
Thank you, this is great insight and helpful to someone who started writing with the internet, albeit in its very early days...
I don't mind not being paid for short stories, in general. Nice when it happens, of course.
I don't submit to fee-charging mags, or most competitions, anymore. They make it plain in their subs guidelines that they are biased in certain directions, so it's just not worth it if the prospective writer or their work are not in the favoured groups. I don't actually care so much about that, as of course they are entitled to publish what they want, and these days there are hundreds of magazines out there that I can submit to. I'll probably never read any of them if they are THAT biased. I think it's not great for literature in general, though, if their only readers are going to be people who are biased in the same way.
I also don't mind critiques by magazines' readers, in theory, but I have never paid for one and am never going to. Most of those I have been given have been from people whose only qualification to critique seems to be that they attended some writers' course and stuck to the 5 narrow rules they learned there, and have been more or less worthless... except to teach me the valuable lesson of never going for the paid critique option.
Amen Bro-- there's so much bullshit with intellectuals!
Brava
'Please, sir, take my turnips and sell them in your shop.'
'Sorry, no-one buys turnips these days.'
'But they're good for you. And besides, I can't help growing turnips.'
'Tell you what I'll do. If you show me a good enough turnip, and pay me to put it in my shop, I'll tell everyone that comes to my shop that this fine turnip was grown by you.'
'So, when you sell it, I'll get some of the money?'
'Sir, I told you, no-one buys turnips these days.'
thank you for your honesty and reflection.
Great article Louise! Welcome to my world and it is not an easy one. With so many lit magazines publishing “only the best of the best of the very best”, it is almost impossible for anyone to make living today as a writer, let alone get published. I think it helps to establish some personal rules for submissions (ex. simultaneous submissions, checking magazines acceptance rates, no more than two rejections per magazine, etc.). And I like your suggestions. too Good luck to you.
Dear A. Louise Cole, we really must keep in touch. I love the lucid tone of your essay and concur with all of it. For my part, I keep spreadsheets on all my translation and original writing submissions and there is a column for cost. I feel compelled to keep data on the submissions process for the sake of my mental health, yes, but also to have an objective cost-gain analysis available to me. This becomes important at the moment of querying a book of short stories in translation to a publisher, for example: I want to be able to know (perhaps to say), it cost me this much money to promote this author. I wish I had been keeping track of how much TIME I have spent, too! Especially in the literary translation field, that hidden expense is off the charts.