Several weeks ago I received an email from the editor of one of the most prestigious journals I've ever tried. The email said my piece, a researched essay, had been selected for final consideration. My essay was being "sent up." The journal does not allow simultaneous submissions. The editor has been interviewed on LitMag News. My heart skipped a beat and I sent confirmation that the essay had been sent nowhere else; "no, I have not submitted the essay anywhere else; it belongs to you." In using the word "belong," I really meant it. I felt it. I believed in my essay, and in the journal.
The journal's pedigree, especially in poetry, my topic, the Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh, the originality of the essay's thesis.... And yet, despite the fit, while I was away on vacation I got an envelope in the mail. When you get an envelope instead of a phone call or email you don't even need to open it. But of course I opened it. The editor said they had really "had fun" with my essay. And this was a serious essay! So, I am left wondering what "have fun" means in literary circles. I had fun writing my essay. But I am not having fun now. A near miss hurts way more than a normal rejection. This one hurts worse than any turn-down I've ever had. Especially for a writer who needs a breakthrough to keep him going as his years wind down.
Thanks for giving us a look inside to see how all of this happens on the inside of a journal. There is always a "they" and never a "me" behind the editorial curtain. As a writer you can't help wondering who actually gave your piece the thumbs down.
I think this is better said as "What Happens At Some Editorial Meetings" or "What Happens at Editorial Meetings at Magazines with Large Staffs" - out of the thousands of lit mags out there, how many can relate to this article? I'd say a majority are more like me, small - a masthead of one or two, three at most - and it's the mags like these that most writers interact with... the smaller magazines in the trenches. And editorial meetings are not zoom calls across the world discussing literature and etc. For months, an editorial meeting for me was wading through hundreds of overwhelmingly amazing stories and poetry submitted to Micromance, then debating with myself which make the cut. Eventually, I recruited some help, and now "editorial meetings" are an email shot to my co-editor asking, "what do you think of this idea?" or "so and so is emailing again for a publication date, do you have one?" And I think that's how it is for most of us. Before I was EIC of Micromance, I was a poetry editor at Fictionette and then a poetry and drabble editor at The Secret Attic... And the process was the same - the EIC would email us once a month for our picks of submissions and, once in awhile, send a message about an update to the publication schedule, etc. This is the real world of the lit mag universe... Not elite publications with staffs of readers and reviewers and multiple editors and publicists and...and.... And it's not so-called elite magazines who publish a handful of select pieces a year and have very little social media presence among the "common writer" - it's the small mags that publish quarterly, monthly, daily, with their staff of none who sort through hundreds and thousands of submissions a year, all while also maintaining a presence in the community, interacting with writers, etc. And articles like this, that repeatedly focus on the elite, do not give (all) writers an accurate or fair look into how the lit mag world really operates...
"The good (or bad!) news is that: they do. Not everyone, but some of the decisions might have had some bearing with who the submitter was, what they had been publishing and what promise they held." So much for blind submissions, I guess.
Interesting article. More so that you've said the quiet part out loud: that at least some decisions are based upon who the author is.
It would be refreshing if decisions were based solely upon the work, without taking into account who the author is, what they've published or haven't published, what their presence on social media is or isn't, etc. Maybe the process could be completely blind, not simply partial.
I’ve seen this be the case from the submitter side, but I’d hope not in general! Authors deserve fairness, and magazines should be trying to curate the best issue they can. That said, I’ve been an editor (though not *the* editor) for a hot minute, and the only 100% solution—waiting until the window closes and shuffling the packets—doesn’t seem workable, both because Submittable doesn’t make it easy and also because sleeping on sim subs is a no-go.
What has worked well in my experience is grabbing only our absolute favorites early, the pieces that were always going to make it unless we got totally surprised by a flood of great work at the deadline. Waiting on the others is fine because, as everyone says, the last few decisions are a bit arbitrary.
Wow, this was a beefy article for sure. As a writer who has only been submitting work for less than a year I really appreciate hearing what goes on behind the scenes. Also, the list of tips at the end is great. I have been published three times so far and have been shortlisted/won a couple of contests but to date have no website. With my memoir nearing completion I wonder if it makes sense to get something up and running. I'm also only on one social media (IG) and plan to remain that way at least until my book comes out. I find it overwhelming and distracting so I paused FB a while back. Thank you so much for taking the time to get this info on the page. Every little nugget is helpful, especially for new writers like me.
First, what magazine/journal is Mandira Pattnaik talking about? Was it Vestal Review, trampset, IHLR or The Ilanot Review?
Second, it's not clear from the description how the voting goes there. Does there need to be a consensus, or does majority rule there? For example, if five are strongly in favor and three are very strongly against, does that piece get published? This is important to know because often it's the outliers and the unusual pieces that attract both champions and opponents.
My own sense is that I've had more acceptances (often quick ones, too) at journals where one editor makes most of the decisions, not where a big committee needs to agree or negotiate with one another.
I can tell you about Variant Lit: there’s some filtering and then it’s a benevolent dictatorship. Re: outliers, I often pass them upward just because they’re unusual, even when I’m 99% sure the result will be a declination.
Thank you for sharing about what goes on behind the scenes. I'm a reader for Hippocampus so I have some insight as to some of this, but after I've read a piece and given my thoughts, I generally don't know what happens.
I've been reading for them for over a year and I will say that it continues to amaze me on when it's obvious that the guidelines haven't been fully read.
So I'm not the only one? I operate a small journal and am also amazed at the very same thing. I really don't get it. Not sure I ever will. Still, onward.....
Thank you, this went way further than the “Editors are people too, and are subjective” that I expected. Well worth the read, and now I also want to be part of a magazine that allows late-night Zoom calls around the world with passionate people talking about literature!
I managed to get a piece into the Vestal Review just as it changed hands from its founder. I considered it quite a notch on the belt. Interesting to read what a staff meeting feels like. As a former one man band editor, though, I'm not sure I'm jealous or grateful it was just me and the art guy when we ran our mag.
Several weeks ago I received an email from the editor of one of the most prestigious journals I've ever tried. The email said my piece, a researched essay, had been selected for final consideration. My essay was being "sent up." The journal does not allow simultaneous submissions. The editor has been interviewed on LitMag News. My heart skipped a beat and I sent confirmation that the essay had been sent nowhere else; "no, I have not submitted the essay anywhere else; it belongs to you." In using the word "belong," I really meant it. I felt it. I believed in my essay, and in the journal.
The journal's pedigree, especially in poetry, my topic, the Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh, the originality of the essay's thesis.... And yet, despite the fit, while I was away on vacation I got an envelope in the mail. When you get an envelope instead of a phone call or email you don't even need to open it. But of course I opened it. The editor said they had really "had fun" with my essay. And this was a serious essay! So, I am left wondering what "have fun" means in literary circles. I had fun writing my essay. But I am not having fun now. A near miss hurts way more than a normal rejection. This one hurts worse than any turn-down I've ever had. Especially for a writer who needs a breakthrough to keep him going as his years wind down.
Thanks for giving us a look inside to see how all of this happens on the inside of a journal. There is always a "they" and never a "me" behind the editorial curtain. As a writer you can't help wondering who actually gave your piece the thumbs down.
I think this is better said as "What Happens At Some Editorial Meetings" or "What Happens at Editorial Meetings at Magazines with Large Staffs" - out of the thousands of lit mags out there, how many can relate to this article? I'd say a majority are more like me, small - a masthead of one or two, three at most - and it's the mags like these that most writers interact with... the smaller magazines in the trenches. And editorial meetings are not zoom calls across the world discussing literature and etc. For months, an editorial meeting for me was wading through hundreds of overwhelmingly amazing stories and poetry submitted to Micromance, then debating with myself which make the cut. Eventually, I recruited some help, and now "editorial meetings" are an email shot to my co-editor asking, "what do you think of this idea?" or "so and so is emailing again for a publication date, do you have one?" And I think that's how it is for most of us. Before I was EIC of Micromance, I was a poetry editor at Fictionette and then a poetry and drabble editor at The Secret Attic... And the process was the same - the EIC would email us once a month for our picks of submissions and, once in awhile, send a message about an update to the publication schedule, etc. This is the real world of the lit mag universe... Not elite publications with staffs of readers and reviewers and multiple editors and publicists and...and.... And it's not so-called elite magazines who publish a handful of select pieces a year and have very little social media presence among the "common writer" - it's the small mags that publish quarterly, monthly, daily, with their staff of none who sort through hundreds and thousands of submissions a year, all while also maintaining a presence in the community, interacting with writers, etc. And articles like this, that repeatedly focus on the elite, do not give (all) writers an accurate or fair look into how the lit mag world really operates...
Thank you
"The good (or bad!) news is that: they do. Not everyone, but some of the decisions might have had some bearing with who the submitter was, what they had been publishing and what promise they held." So much for blind submissions, I guess.
Interesting article. More so that you've said the quiet part out loud: that at least some decisions are based upon who the author is.
It would be refreshing if decisions were based solely upon the work, without taking into account who the author is, what they've published or haven't published, what their presence on social media is or isn't, etc. Maybe the process could be completely blind, not simply partial.
> In my experience, submitting early is crucial.
I’ve seen this be the case from the submitter side, but I’d hope not in general! Authors deserve fairness, and magazines should be trying to curate the best issue they can. That said, I’ve been an editor (though not *the* editor) for a hot minute, and the only 100% solution—waiting until the window closes and shuffling the packets—doesn’t seem workable, both because Submittable doesn’t make it easy and also because sleeping on sim subs is a no-go.
What has worked well in my experience is grabbing only our absolute favorites early, the pieces that were always going to make it unless we got totally surprised by a flood of great work at the deadline. Waiting on the others is fine because, as everyone says, the last few decisions are a bit arbitrary.
Wow, this was a beefy article for sure. As a writer who has only been submitting work for less than a year I really appreciate hearing what goes on behind the scenes. Also, the list of tips at the end is great. I have been published three times so far and have been shortlisted/won a couple of contests but to date have no website. With my memoir nearing completion I wonder if it makes sense to get something up and running. I'm also only on one social media (IG) and plan to remain that way at least until my book comes out. I find it overwhelming and distracting so I paused FB a while back. Thank you so much for taking the time to get this info on the page. Every little nugget is helpful, especially for new writers like me.
I have two questions:
First, what magazine/journal is Mandira Pattnaik talking about? Was it Vestal Review, trampset, IHLR or The Ilanot Review?
Second, it's not clear from the description how the voting goes there. Does there need to be a consensus, or does majority rule there? For example, if five are strongly in favor and three are very strongly against, does that piece get published? This is important to know because often it's the outliers and the unusual pieces that attract both champions and opponents.
My own sense is that I've had more acceptances (often quick ones, too) at journals where one editor makes most of the decisions, not where a big committee needs to agree or negotiate with one another.
I can tell you about Variant Lit: there’s some filtering and then it’s a benevolent dictatorship. Re: outliers, I often pass them upward just because they’re unusual, even when I’m 99% sure the result will be a declination.
Oh wow, very interesting about Variant Lit. I submitted to them a few times (all rejections). Food for thought before subbing to them again.
Thank you for sharing about what goes on behind the scenes. I'm a reader for Hippocampus so I have some insight as to some of this, but after I've read a piece and given my thoughts, I generally don't know what happens.
I've been reading for them for over a year and I will say that it continues to amaze me on when it's obvious that the guidelines haven't been fully read.
So I'm not the only one? I operate a small journal and am also amazed at the very same thing. I really don't get it. Not sure I ever will. Still, onward.....
Thank you, this went way further than the “Editors are people too, and are subjective” that I expected. Well worth the read, and now I also want to be part of a magazine that allows late-night Zoom calls around the world with passionate people talking about literature!
Super interesting. Thank you!
I managed to get a piece into the Vestal Review just as it changed hands from its founder. I considered it quite a notch on the belt. Interesting to read what a staff meeting feels like. As a former one man band editor, though, I'm not sure I'm jealous or grateful it was just me and the art guy when we ran our mag.