December 1st, 2010 / 5:30 pm
Random

Flatmancrooked has decided to offer Expedited Submissions where a senior editor will respond to such submissions in 14 days or fewer. The fee? $5. I understand the inclination, have definitely considered some sort of tiered submission structure, but remain uncomfortable with the idea of charging for submissions (and conversely, paying to submit). As a person who enjoys instant gratification, I like the idea of knowing the time frame within which my work will be considered. That privilege just might be worth $5 to me. Then again, I am increasingly less preoccupied with things like response times. And yet. And back and forth I go. Thoughts? Will you pay to play?

Tags: , ,

119 Comments

  1. Ryan Call

      hi steve,

      we do moderate the comments, but usually we’re looking for content thats different from jereme’s comment. commenters here can also help to create a ‘reasoned level of discourse.’ you’ll notice both comments that called flatmancrooked’s actions as ‘bullshit’ were not addressed, but elsewhere more interesting discussions seem to be happening. you can ‘collapse’ the comments that you feel are dull/not up to the level of discourse that you expect by clicking on the minus in the right side of the commenters bar, as probably others have done with your ‘rejection letter to jereme’ below.

      thanks,
      ryan

  2. jereme_dean

      “hi steve,

      we do moderate the comments, but usually we’re looking for content thats different from jereme’s comment. commenters here can also help to create a ‘reasoned level of discourse.’ you’ll notice both comments that called flatmancrooked’s actions as ‘bullshit’ were not addressed, but elsewhere more interesting discussions seem to be happening. you can ‘collapse’ the comments that you feel are dull/not up to the level of discourse that you expect by clicking on the minus in the right side of the commenters bar, as probably others have done with your ‘rejection letter to jereme’ below.

      thanks,
      ryan”

      regards,

      JEREME

  3. Roxane

      For the most part, Steve, this discussion has been pretty reasonable. People talk about these kinds of things. Everyone here, I feel, understands that this is not mandatory. Narrative has been discussed here many times. When Brevity instituted their fee, we talked about it. We’re not “picking on” FMC. You’re right. FMC can do whatever they want with their money and you don’t have to justify your expenditures or editorial choices. You’ll notice that the comments you take issue with were largely ignored. Most people here respect the work FMC is doing but please, stop acting like FMC and its editors are the only ones doing 50 important things and putting their own money into their ventures. Do you want a pat on the back? I would guess that a great many of the people here have put a whole lot of money into supporting small publishers, both their own and others. Do you really want to get into some financial dicksizing? Do people really have to prove to you that their either well off enough or altruistic enough to keep small publishers afloat before they can participate in this discourse?

  4. jereme_dean

      Thank you for responding Deena. My initial questions were written after cursory glance of what was being proposed. Now that I have a better understanding, I have more questions.

      I’ll post them here once I have the time to write them down.

  5. Guest

      For the at-home players who are adults: I’m guessing ‘suck’ and ‘idiot’, though ‘shit’ and ‘idjit’ (McCarthy) or ‘idgit’ (Matthiessen) would be better.

  6. Guest

      *You’re

      $5, please.

  7. Trey

      dude, is this a productive attitude?

  8. Guest

      It’s all part of the same conversation and I never suggested that you all shouldn’t be allowed to defend yourselves. Where’d you get that from?

      And it’s pretty clear in my first post that the issue is the sanctimony in Andrew’s post.

      Here’s how this usually works:

      *HTMLGiant blogs about a lit journal or indie press coming up with an inventive method to raise money or support.

      *Some commenters have an issue with the method.

      *Someone like Andrew hops onto the thread and, instead of addressing the commenters’ actual critiques, gets on his soapbox about how we should all appreciate and support literary journals, and be ashamed of ourselves for dare questioning the lit journal’s methods.

      The implication is that writers don’t show their appreciation enough for literary journals, which is absurd since you apparently need to enact a method to motivate yourself to get through the slush more quickly, and since there are more lit journals and indie presses now than ever before and a downturn isn’t on the horizon.

      In fact, there are so many literary journals and indie presses today that I shouldn’t be required to bow at their altar for merely existing and working hard.

  9. Guest

      I find it rather curious–and Puritanical–that someone in a position of power (someone who could very well decide whether or not to publish our work)–is essentially asking people for their ID’s.

  10. Guest

      “And, most importantly, to those high and mighty among you, how much have you spent on keeping small publishers afloat in the last year(s)? Nothing? Then stop typing please. You don’t really care about the industry; you care about the sound of your own snarky voice.”

      ________________________

      This is precisely the attitude that’s the problem–your belief that you’re doing something unique or special, or your belief that you can tell whether or not someone supports literary journals or indie presses based upon their “snarky” comments on this thread. I’ve worked for several journals that wield more national influence than FM.

      You’re not special, or unique, and you seem to be rather humorless, uptight–someone who takes himself too seriously and is looking for the first opportunity to enact the moral high ground.

  11. Mike Meginnis

      The thing is I don’t see why not making much money off it is a defense.

      If it was genuinely making you fat stacks, that would be just about the only reason to do it that would make any sense.

  12. RyanPard

      Five bucks for reading 5K words sounds like a pretty nice turn to me.

  13. Merideth

      Nope, FMC isn’t kind of huge; it’s actually quite small – but it might seem bigger than it is because of the way it does business.

  14. Merideth

      I like being anonymous; it feels better than than being eponymous ;)

  15. phm

      It’s also exactly the kind of thing they banned one Mather Schneider for, but whatever, y’know.

  16. phm

      Well, given the brusque and baseless rejections I’ve been getting lately, I wouldn’t mind paying someone five bucks to give me some honest feedback. Maybe. I dunno. I’ll have to read the magazine a little more. I remember something about Raudio. It was good stuff. They’re out of San Francisco, I think, and this is a comment made without the aid of any sort of googling. Anyways, what I was going to say is this: everyone in San Francisco thinks they’re huge. Look at fucking Jimmy Chen.

  17. Richard Thomas
  18. Richard Thomas
  19. Richard Thomas