Against Transparency
It’s become a pretty popular complaint here and elsewhere: writers getting upset because there’s a literary magazine or journal who isn’t being up front about who they are and how they work. The primary complaint seems centered around the idea that editors should make themselves known to their potential writers and readers, so as to supposedly more clearly define the way the selection of work goes down, as well as lend some manner of culpability to the ramifications thereafter. As in, an editor can’t be a cock in a rejection letter, or have a real big backlog of responses waiting, without the attached weight that this will then affect their ‘reputation’ in the community. This is supposed to, I think people think, clean up on the editorial end any possible wrongdoing or ill treatment. When editors don’t do this, certain types like to claim they are “hiding behind” something, or otherwise somehow not operating on some kind of common ground of lit creation.
Who gives a fuck?
I honestly can’t imagine what sort of entitled idiot thinks they should have this kind of say over a jurisdiction that they only causally have a relationship with. There is some big mistaken idea that seems to crop up heavily in independent lit, moreso than big house lit or small scenes of other arts, that the writer is ‘entitled’ to some kind of special handling. That when an entity comes into the world, it has to come in on the terms of those who will invoke it, which are, basically, in this case, those who will interact most often by (a) submitting their work as often as possible until they get accepted without (b) likely ever buying an issue of the journal until they get into it and (c) probably never even so much as thanking anyone involved on the other end, who is probably funding this enterprise out of pocket for cost, and is putting together the magazine entirely out of love for words.
Sure, some editors might be more underhanded than that, but I like to think those journals don’t tend to stick around, or they tend to stand out like sore thumbs. And sure, some writers who submit to places do indeed buy the issues and support the work regardless of their acceptance in the enterprise, and in the event that they do end up published, they very well likely might directly express thanks of some sort. Though, having edited for a while, and having dealt with a wide range of these sorts of people, I can tell you that the type I’m talking about are heavily more prevalent than the latter.
So what does this all mean? Essentially, to me, what it means is is that whining for transparency is not only the cry of those who feel both entitled and neglected, but is also about as ridiculous as going to, say, a Mexican restaurant and complaining that they don’t have quiche. That, by god, they should go back in the kitchen and divvy up some quiche out of the coffers, because I’m the customer here, and the customer is always right, and I don’t care if the picture on your billboard is of a mustachioed man holding a burrito big as his body, I want my say. I want to feel accepted in mere approach. I want mine.
You don’t like that a journal isn’t up front about who is behind the scenes? Don’t submit! There are so many venues out there for your work, surely you can feel ok by sparing this one and crossing it off your list. Is it really going to break your ass to never be in the Barnfield Intercollegiate Review or whoever? Or even Tin House? No, it’s not going to break your ass. These are independent enterprises, not ones constrained by some vast unspoken democratic impulse. There is no union. There is no ethic. If I want to make a magazine in my basement that is printed on kleenex and I use the issues to wipe my ass with, and you don’t like that, don’t bother sending in your work.
So it takes them 400 days to respond to your submission… go for a walk! Email someone else. Do something else.
You want to know how things go on ‘behind the scenes’? Start your own! Make up your own rules, and proceed however you like. If part of your shtick is that you think everything should be out in the open, by all means start DemocracyMag.com and get to poppin’. I guarantee that no matter what you come up with, there will be hundreds of people filling your inbox every month, some of them probably angry about how you’re doing it, many more of them ignoring those guidelines completely and just continuing to feed your face until they either crack the gate or something else happens. It’s hard enough to stay afloat than to have to worry about who feels sad about what words and when and where and why aren’t you doing more?
Well, why aren’t you?
This post isn’t founded in elitism. It isn’t in defense of all journals, regardless of their practice. Lord knows I’ve railed on journals for how they operate before, and will again, because sure, there is some level of shared respect that we’d all like to think is involved here, as we are all humans, but all of the things to get upset about, transparency seems by far the lamest, and the least effectual. But nothing is guaranteed, nor should it be. Nobody explicitly owes anybody anything in this little extravaganza. And there’s plenty going on.
Tags: start your own, transparency
Yeah. Economy of effort is much hotter than being loud and annoying.
Oh and good photo choices.
Yeah. Economy of effort is much hotter than being loud and annoying.
Oh and good photo choices.
Tempest. Teapot. As one of those who does not like the anonymous editors, I don’t think I’ve ever said that they must show themselves. Rather, I’ve said and done exactly what you’re suggesting I do: “You don’t like that a journal isn’t up front about who is behind the scenes? Don’t submit!” And that’s pretty much what I’ve heard other detractors of the anonymous editors say: that they won’t submit. And then we get shouted down with posts/comments like this one, and we shout back, and shout shout shout wah wah wah from both sides.
Why do supporters of blank mastheads care at all that some of us think that’s bullshit? Likewise, why do detractors of blank mastheads give a shit that others think that’s hunky-dory?
Totally fucking tiresome. I won’t submit. You go ahead and submit. Yay. Everybody’s happy.
Tempest. Teapot. As one of those who does not like the anonymous editors, I don’t think I’ve ever said that they must show themselves. Rather, I’ve said and done exactly what you’re suggesting I do: “You don’t like that a journal isn’t up front about who is behind the scenes? Don’t submit!” And that’s pretty much what I’ve heard other detractors of the anonymous editors say: that they won’t submit. And then we get shouted down with posts/comments like this one, and we shout back, and shout shout shout wah wah wah from both sides.
Why do supporters of blank mastheads care at all that some of us think that’s bullshit? Likewise, why do detractors of blank mastheads give a shit that others think that’s hunky-dory?
Totally fucking tiresome. I won’t submit. You go ahead and submit. Yay. Everybody’s happy.
you might be one of the more levelheaded of the bunch Dave. i don’t think it’s always that common a response.
you might be one of the more levelheaded of the bunch Dave. i don’t think it’s always that common a response.
it’s all a tempest in a teapot. including the work itself.
it’s all a tempest in a teapot. including the work itself.
Well, hopefully Mean Week will incite a screaming match between both sides, such that Jimmy has enough “Sommelier Says” to fill out the rest of the year.
Well, hopefully Mean Week will incite a screaming match between both sides, such that Jimmy has enough “Sommelier Says” to fill out the rest of the year.
Yeah, agreed. I’m not angry, but “They can do what they want” is a nice call to humility. Trying to approach it as: Wow, nice of all these strangers to read my words just because I sent them.
Maybe this is a good principle to apply to the anti-Narrative Mag/pay-per-submission complaint? As in, “$20? $10? $3? I don’t want to pay that so I won’t.” But they can do as they please.
Yeah, agreed. I’m not angry, but “They can do what they want” is a nice call to humility. Trying to approach it as: Wow, nice of all these strangers to read my words just because I sent them.
Maybe this is a good principle to apply to the anti-Narrative Mag/pay-per-submission complaint? As in, “$20? $10? $3? I don’t want to pay that so I won’t.” But they can do as they please.
I think I absolutely agree w/ you regarding submitters’ attitude of entitlement and lack of appreciation for editors.
At the same time, I’m a little bit reluctant to fully give myself over to the “don’t like it submit elsewhere,” or “don’t like it, start your own” line of thinking. It feels a little bit too much like “free markets are self regulating.” Transparency as you describe it isn’t of great concern to me, but at the same time… well this is why the Narrative example is interesting, right? I actually have mixed feelings abt Narrative — a part of me thinks they’re just a non-profit trying to stay solvent in an environment not especially conducive to their success. But I think one of the reasons people get so wound up over Narrative is b/c of the level of power and influence they’ve accumulated. If they weren’t landing themselves on all these best-of-this-or-that-lists, nobody would give a shit. Publishers and publications both indie & mainstream exist as a system and set of institutions, which means there are and will be power dynamics and unequal distributions of power and influence. I’m reluctant to fully cede my right to critique or question power, should a situation arise in the future where I feel the need to do so…
But maybe I’m not disagreeing w/ you. You’re not arguing against criticizing publications, you’re just arguing against the “transparency” thing.
I think I absolutely agree w/ you regarding submitters’ attitude of entitlement and lack of appreciation for editors.
At the same time, I’m a little bit reluctant to fully give myself over to the “don’t like it submit elsewhere,” or “don’t like it, start your own” line of thinking. It feels a little bit too much like “free markets are self regulating.” Transparency as you describe it isn’t of great concern to me, but at the same time… well this is why the Narrative example is interesting, right? I actually have mixed feelings abt Narrative — a part of me thinks they’re just a non-profit trying to stay solvent in an environment not especially conducive to their success. But I think one of the reasons people get so wound up over Narrative is b/c of the level of power and influence they’ve accumulated. If they weren’t landing themselves on all these best-of-this-or-that-lists, nobody would give a shit. Publishers and publications both indie & mainstream exist as a system and set of institutions, which means there are and will be power dynamics and unequal distributions of power and influence. I’m reluctant to fully cede my right to critique or question power, should a situation arise in the future where I feel the need to do so…
But maybe I’m not disagreeing w/ you. You’re not arguing against criticizing publications, you’re just arguing against the “transparency” thing.
By the bye, since we’re giving each other shit in at least two other threads right now, I want to just mention that I think this post is dead-eye on-point. Much love.
By the bye, since we’re giving each other shit in at least two other threads right now, I want to just mention that I think this post is dead-eye on-point. Much love.
thanks justin. much love returned, as always.
thanks justin. much love returned, as always.
Having a name/names attached to a journal in no way makes its processes transparent. Knowing who’s who, and who’s reading who, may in some cases be a great thing — seeking out an editor you want to work with, for example, or submitting to a journal that publishes work you love. But for the most part, the who’s who simply provides comfort. Like a backrub. A community or club that some get to join and others don’t, by a system of regularly changing rules. And changing faces, for that matter.
I think it’s an interesting discussion because it reveals writerly uneasiness so acutely. The question seems to be, about work published w/o a masthead, “Will it still count?” Well, jeez. Make that decision yourself when you choose where to submit.
Having a name/names attached to a journal in no way makes its processes transparent. Knowing who’s who, and who’s reading who, may in some cases be a great thing — seeking out an editor you want to work with, for example, or submitting to a journal that publishes work you love. But for the most part, the who’s who simply provides comfort. Like a backrub. A community or club that some get to join and others don’t, by a system of regularly changing rules. And changing faces, for that matter.
I think it’s an interesting discussion because it reveals writerly uneasiness so acutely. The question seems to be, about work published w/o a masthead, “Will it still count?” Well, jeez. Make that decision yourself when you choose where to submit.
This last part, yes. I think people are more worried about “legitimacy” than transparency.
This last part, yes. I think people are more worried about “legitimacy” than transparency.
what the hell is legitimacy?
what the hell is legitimacy?
that’s why it’s in quotes
that’s why it’s in quotes
sorry, i am dumb, and apparently antagonistic today
sorry, i am dumb, and apparently antagonistic today
Legitimacy = the man, man.
Legitimacy = the man, man.
How can you say, ‘So it takes them 400 days to respond to your submission… go for a walk!’ when they also ask for no simultaneous submissions? So you’re happy to lock one of your pieces for an entire year without consideration elsewhere (this does exist, aside from your embellishments, Blake)? I know the majority of journals offer simultaneous submissions, but then there’s the other problem with your argument, that is, that you are condoning an inefficient literary marketplace of currencies literary and monetary. I see your point that whining about it is not doing something about it. Attitudes aside, for more effective transmission between writers and editors, wouldn’t transparency be better? Just because not submitting to a journal is perhaps the best conduct for a writer in relation to these journals, doesn’t mean it isn’t worth denouncing. You speak about a false sense of entitlement in the writer, well how about the false sense of entitlement in the editor? They had a hand in starting a journal. So fucking what! If that’s their excuse to treat writers how ever they want, not getting back to them about submissions, complaining about multiple submission (conveyed by a polite, ‘sorry, I was recently published elsewhere’) after the deadline for replying to writers, three months in total wait time, dissimulating gratuitous nepotism whilst maintaining a face of ‘we are interested in new voices’, and complaining about large numbers of submissions. What the fuck did you start a journal for if you didn’t want a large amount of work to consider, to find extraordinary work within? And consider the stereotypical editor’s reading of a submission: 30-40 seconds, to ascertain whether a piece is promoted to the maybe pile from the slush pile. How long does it take you to write a story, and edit it, and consider the right journal for you, and then to submit to them? We’re probably talking months. I’m not saying the reading process is wrong, how else are you to get through hundreds of submissions? But to condone disrespectful behaviour in an editor, who happens to have the opportunity to get away with it, with the remark: ‘just submit elsewhere’ is just plain bullshit. Tactful behaviour either side, and understanding, must be maintained. And I think our complaints as writers go more towards the bigger journals who have larger submissions piles, less interest in the individual writer, and the resources to maintain poor behaviour regarding writers since their funding and subscriptions to libraries will remain regardless. Often, those journals that come from visionary editors, or those funding it themselves, have the best conduct, are the most respectful and have more interest in the writer.
Fuck yeah, Mean Week. Apologies for the length. Looks like I’ve been holding this in.
How can you say, ‘So it takes them 400 days to respond to your submission… go for a walk!’ when they also ask for no simultaneous submissions? So you’re happy to lock one of your pieces for an entire year without consideration elsewhere (this does exist, aside from your embellishments, Blake)? I know the majority of journals offer simultaneous submissions, but then there’s the other problem with your argument, that is, that you are condoning an inefficient literary marketplace of currencies literary and monetary. I see your point that whining about it is not doing something about it. Attitudes aside, for more effective transmission between writers and editors, wouldn’t transparency be better? Just because not submitting to a journal is perhaps the best conduct for a writer in relation to these journals, doesn’t mean it isn’t worth denouncing. You speak about a false sense of entitlement in the writer, well how about the false sense of entitlement in the editor? They had a hand in starting a journal. So fucking what! If that’s their excuse to treat writers how ever they want, not getting back to them about submissions, complaining about multiple submission (conveyed by a polite, ‘sorry, I was recently published elsewhere’) after the deadline for replying to writers, three months in total wait time, dissimulating gratuitous nepotism whilst maintaining a face of ‘we are interested in new voices’, and complaining about large numbers of submissions. What the fuck did you start a journal for if you didn’t want a large amount of work to consider, to find extraordinary work within? And consider the stereotypical editor’s reading of a submission: 30-40 seconds, to ascertain whether a piece is promoted to the maybe pile from the slush pile. How long does it take you to write a story, and edit it, and consider the right journal for you, and then to submit to them? We’re probably talking months. I’m not saying the reading process is wrong, how else are you to get through hundreds of submissions? But to condone disrespectful behaviour in an editor, who happens to have the opportunity to get away with it, with the remark: ‘just submit elsewhere’ is just plain bullshit. Tactful behaviour either side, and understanding, must be maintained. And I think our complaints as writers go more towards the bigger journals who have larger submissions piles, less interest in the individual writer, and the resources to maintain poor behaviour regarding writers since their funding and subscriptions to libraries will remain regardless. Often, those journals that come from visionary editors, or those funding it themselves, have the best conduct, are the most respectful and have more interest in the writer.
Fuck yeah, Mean Week. Apologies for the length. Looks like I’ve been holding this in.
so don’t send to them. or do send to them, and submit simultaneously anyway. things take time. work is hard.
so don’t send to them. or do send to them, and submit simultaneously anyway. things take time. work is hard.
‘or do send to them, and submit simultaneously anyway.’
yes.
‘or do send to them, and submit simultaneously anyway.’
yes.
You don’t think or you don’t know? I’ve read at least thirty of these arguments in the past few years, more in the past few months, and usually the real argument is between good writers trying to convince each other not to partake so as to hasten the eventual collapse by starving them of good content.
You don’t think or you don’t know? I’ve read at least thirty of these arguments in the past few years, more in the past few months, and usually the real argument is between good writers trying to convince each other not to partake so as to hasten the eventual collapse by starving them of good content.
“Them” being the anonymously run magazines. And then the other side of the argument is people feeling defensive about taking part. And so forth.
“Them” being the anonymously run magazines. And then the other side of the argument is people feeling defensive about taking part. And so forth.
This chaos some people love so dearly ran its course years ago. Attempting to artificially revive it doesn’t do anyone any good.
This chaos some people love so dearly ran its course years ago. Attempting to artificially revive it doesn’t do anyone any good.
I think some of your anger may come from the mistaken impression that it takes an editor 30 seconds to make a judgment on a story. If that was the case, long response times would really be inexcusable.
But there is a ton of competent writing coming in to journals, and snap judgments aren’t usually possible. I am sure we spend at 20-30 minutes on most submissions (2 readers on each story) and I assume it is similar at other magazines.
I think some of your anger may come from the mistaken impression that it takes an editor 30 seconds to make a judgment on a story. If that was the case, long response times would really be inexcusable.
But there is a ton of competent writing coming in to journals, and snap judgments aren’t usually possible. I am sure we spend at 20-30 minutes on most submissions (2 readers on each story) and I assume it is similar at other magazines.