Roundup
John Grisham wrote an interesting editorial in the New York Times about the kinds of work he has done including selling underwear at Sears.
Amber Sparks has written a must-read post about professionalism and literary magazines.
Lionel Shriver has some things to say about women and publishing in The Guardian.
Have you all read Bad Marie by Marcy Demansky yet? It’s amazing and you should go get this book immediately so you can let it kick you in the face. It will be worth it.
Speaking of hipsters, here’s something on cultural vampirism.
If you loved Beverly Hills 90210 (the original, of course; let us not speak of the current abomination) you might enjoy this interview with a producer from that show.
I have always been fascinated by the giddiness of women in commercials about cleaning products so when I read this poem, I felt like something important was happening.
Finally, four little magazines that always have interesting things to read: vis a tergo, Metazen, Dark Sky, and Staccato Fiction.
Tags: 90210, John Grisham, online magazines
from a dishwashers perspective, selling underwear seems pretty pleasant.
from a dishwashers perspective, selling underwear seems pretty pleasant.
The first few chapters of ‘Bad Marie’ available on the Harper Collins website are excellent. Just put it on hold at the library.
Thanks Roxane, so much good stuff in here. Loved the Grisham article, I do admit to enjoying his books, even if they aren’t all that deep. Glad to read Amber’s rant, couldn’t agree more there. And I just added Bad Marie to my “to-read” list at GoodReads.com, looks awesome. YOU ROCK!
Those first chapters will get you. It’s a good book.
I’m with Amber for the most part but here’s where the post loses me: “the pieces I thought were great a year ago are now cringe-worthy.” If those stories are really cringe-worthy now, they weren’t ready to send out. Editors don’t read with that changing sensibility of the writer. They’re already reading the work with that distance.
Roxane,
Did you like the Grisham piece? I found it to be disappointing. It had a couple of promising ideas–that we shouldn’t assume that every writer “always wanted to be a writer,” and that writing is more difficult than laying asphalt, but neither one was really developed too much, just skimmed over, the latter almost an afterthought. And frankly, I don’t see how writing is more difficult than laying asphalt. I think it’s cool that he de-romanticizes manual labor, which can sometimes seem noble from afar, but then he turns around and romanticizes writing as being “more difficult” without saying how.
The ‘hipster’ debate continues… cultural vampirism, too funny. Isn’t that a byproduct of postmodern condition: global accessibility?
Thanks for the shout-out, Roxane. I was just purely pissed mostly at one particular magazine who shall remain nameless, but then I started rolling through Duotrope, looking at non-responses and response times and I got really really pissed. I mean, one very big very fancy magazine has non-response rates of almost 20%! Not withdrawals–but actual non-responses. Even factoring in mistakes and normal screwups and author stupidity, that’s still a huge number of people they just never get back to. And that is totally unprofessional and lame, thus my rant.
Matt, you’re right–and I should have explained better (I didn’t think anyone was actually going to read this thing!). What I meant by cringe-worthy is not stuff that sucks now or isn’t good, but stuff that maybe I’ve just moved past mentally or am doing something very different than now. I’m way overly critical of my published work, so stuff that I’ve gotten really great feedback from people on–I’ll read it and cringe when it’s really perfectly good stuff and people like it a lot. If that makes any sense. (I mean, basically take away from this that I’m a perfectionist and a neurotic. ;))
I liked the Shriver piece quite a bit. And although I found Picoult’s criticisms of Franzen and ilk mostly silly, I do think I would die of shock if I EVER saw a female writer featured on a (non-women’s) magazine as the “Voice of Her Generation.” I mean really, my neurons would stop firing the instructions to stand and breathe to my brain and I would just keel right the fuck over and die.
Yeah. Agreed, Tim. That last line reminds me of speech class in highschool before anyone learned how to actually end a speech, so they just slapped some overly simplified summation on as a last line and went back to their seats. And, that’s how you eat a banana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8VHc49ZdP4
Response times for magazines really do get absurd. I do think that writers play a bit of a role in the problem, as so many writers fail to target their submissions, respect the rules, or even run a spell check. So, submission queues are often filled with carpet bombed submissions that drag down the response time.
That said, I really don’t see how anyone can call themselves a professional and ever take a year. Hell, how can you even take 6 months? (unless the piece is actually under heavy consideration)
Magazines should be able to reject anything in three months that isn’t being really considered and if they did, the process would be a lot smoother.
why does it matter if a journal takes 2 days or 14 years to respond?
Thanks, Richard. I enjoyed the Grisham article too. I think he’s a fun writer and I thought A Time to Kill was damn good. It is a really underrated book. Do let me know what you think of Bad Marie. I am about to re-read it.
I understand your frustration, Amber. When response times start to stretch into a year or longer, I do wonder what those editors are really doing. I try to keep such things in perspective. My world keeps on turning regardless, but it is something that should be talked about.
Bad Marie is a great read.
Tim, I did like the Grisham piece. It didn’t shatter my world but I didn’t need it to. I enjoyed reading about the jobs Grisham has had and wasn’t looking for deep intellectual significance. I do hate when writing is romanticized as difficult and such. You definitely have a point there. I am reminded of a recent Dear Sugar column where she talks about miners to put the relative ease of the writer’s life into perspective. That said, I find Grisham charming and felt the same way about his op-ed.
I would love to see that happen some day, but I don’t expect that pigs will become airborne any time soon.
Editor just means skilled reader. It’s a title that other readers respect. Satisfying an editor is not the only way to build up readership though–as this page testifies.
When I wrote at the tempo of lit mag response times, I did maybe 10% of the production that I do now. Slow response times, as much as anything, have damaged the craft of writing. I’m probably shooting myself in the foot for saying this, but it’s for this reason that I don’t respect simultaneous submission policies anymore for lit mags. I refuse to accept that a poem that I composed might take up to two years to find the light of day. How am I to get proper feedback in that timeframe? While waiting on an editor to validate/reject one’s writing, how is one to determine whether s/he is moving in the correct direction? No, this slow turn time is the number one thing that killed institutional lit. The next generation of ‘branded readers’ (editors) is coming from the internet, not academia.
Jeff Chon is an example of this: vis a tergo is often sweet, because Jeff has a strong affinity circle to draw upon–not just his strong reading skills & deft wit. Will magazines matter as much in the future? Probably not as much as editors and literary collectives will. In fact, we may already be in the middle of the tipping point.
The first few chapters of ‘Bad Marie’ available on the Harper Collins website are excellent. Just put it on hold at the library.
Great post, Roxane. I’m curious did you read Dermansky’s first book, Twins? If so what did you think?
Too poor to buy the new one right now, and my library doesn’t have it yet.
Totally. I try to have sympathy because of the huge amount of carpet bombing, but it’s hard because when I get one of those submission, I can tell in two seconds. So I feel like those are pretty quickly eliminated. And you’re right–if a piece is under heavy consideration, fine, keep it as long as you like. But if you’re not interested, then say so right away. Another journal that actually does that pretty well is One Story. I’m sure they get a million submissions but they’re always really quick about responding to my pieces with a nice firm no. :)
Email me your address (roxane at roxanegay dot com). I’ll send you a copy. I did not read Demansky’s first book. I only recently learned of her writing but I will definitely check that out.
Thanks Roxane, so much good stuff in here. Loved the Grisham article, I do admit to enjoying his books, even if they aren’t all that deep. Glad to read Amber’s rant, couldn’t agree more there. And I just added Bad Marie to my “to-read” list at GoodReads.com, looks awesome. YOU ROCK!
Those first chapters will get you. It’s a good book.
I’m with Amber for the most part but here’s where the post loses me: “the pieces I thought were great a year ago are now cringe-worthy.” If those stories are really cringe-worthy now, they weren’t ready to send out. Editors don’t read with that changing sensibility of the writer. They’re already reading the work with that distance.
Roxane,
Did you like the Grisham piece? I found it to be disappointing. It had a couple of promising ideas–that we shouldn’t assume that every writer “always wanted to be a writer,” and that writing is more difficult than laying asphalt, but neither one was really developed too much, just skimmed over, the latter almost an afterthought. And frankly, I don’t see how writing is more difficult than laying asphalt. I think it’s cool that he de-romanticizes manual labor, which can sometimes seem noble from afar, but then he turns around and romanticizes writing as being “more difficult” without saying how.
The ‘hipster’ debate continues… cultural vampirism, too funny. Isn’t that a byproduct of postmodern condition: global accessibility?
Thanks for the shout-out, Roxane. I was just purely pissed mostly at one particular magazine who shall remain nameless, but then I started rolling through Duotrope, looking at non-responses and response times and I got really really pissed. I mean, one very big very fancy magazine has non-response rates of almost 20%! Not withdrawals–but actual non-responses. Even factoring in mistakes and normal screwups and author stupidity, that’s still a huge number of people they just never get back to. And that is totally unprofessional and lame, thus my rant.
Matt, you’re right–and I should have explained better (I didn’t think anyone was actually going to read this thing!). What I meant by cringe-worthy is not stuff that sucks now or isn’t good, but stuff that maybe I’ve just moved past mentally or am doing something very different than now. I’m way overly critical of my published work, so stuff that I’ve gotten really great feedback from people on–I’ll read it and cringe when it’s really perfectly good stuff and people like it a lot. If that makes any sense. (I mean, basically take away from this that I’m a perfectionist and a neurotic. ;))
I liked the Shriver piece quite a bit. And although I found Picoult’s criticisms of Franzen and ilk mostly silly, I do think I would die of shock if I EVER saw a female writer featured on a (non-women’s) magazine as the “Voice of Her Generation.” I mean really, my neurons would stop firing the instructions to stand and breathe to my brain and I would just keel right the fuck over and die.
Yeah. Agreed, Tim. That last line reminds me of speech class in highschool before anyone learned how to actually end a speech, so they just slapped some overly simplified summation on as a last line and went back to their seats. And, that’s how you eat a banana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8VHc49ZdP4
Response times for magazines really do get absurd. I do think that writers play a bit of a role in the problem, as so many writers fail to target their submissions, respect the rules, or even run a spell check. So, submission queues are often filled with carpet bombed submissions that drag down the response time.
That said, I really don’t see how anyone can call themselves a professional and ever take a year. Hell, how can you even take 6 months? (unless the piece is actually under heavy consideration)
Magazines should be able to reject anything in three months that isn’t being really considered and if they did, the process would be a lot smoother.
why does it matter if a journal takes 2 days or 14 years to respond?
Well…because in some situations, you may only be submitting this story to that one place (i.e., they may have a “no simultaneous submissions” policy) in which case, that story may be held up for 14 years, only to get rejected. Assuming we only have a finite amount of short stories to send out into the world, that we write in our lifetime, be it 12 or 1200, as writers we want to publish our work in a timely manner. It’s hard enough to get into the top publications (1% acceptance rate or lower) but if you are only submitting them one at a time, this could take FOREVER, and seriously cripple any publishing you might do.
If you are simultaneously submitting, but are aiming at a top tier first (I try to submit my stories in TIERS, i.e., the top markets first, those 1%ers, the most elite, the most prestigious) and those take 14 years, again, you are spending a ridiculous amount of time on one story.
Part of the solution is to just simultaneously submit, but (and this is kind of where it works in reverse against you), many of the top places take the longest, and the “lesser” places take less time, so if using this approach, and somehow you were actually in contention for The Paris Review or The New Yorker or The Missouri Review or Ploughshares, or wherever, you could pull your own story prematurely. That would suck.
It’s complicated.
I think what the GIST of this is, Jereme, is that most literary journals don’t need six months to rejects anyone (let alone 9 months, a year, or more). Most of the time the front lines know pretty quickly what is an immediate rejection. Some that get past the first lines of defense, and to an actual editor or co-editor or assistant editor, the bulk of those will get rejected pretty quickly as well – off theme, close but not quite brilliant enough, they just RAN a story on two-headed rattlesnakes, or something else. The truth is that sure, those that are actually under consideration, they DO take time to work their way up the ladder from front lines, to assistant editor to editor and possibly to a board of some sort. But still…this process probably doesn’t need to take more than six months. If some top places can turn it around in 30 days (and there are many that do) or so, I’m certain the rest can too.
//mytwocents
Thanks, Richard. I enjoyed the Grisham article too. I think he’s a fun writer and I thought A Time to Kill was damn good. It is a really underrated book. Do let me know what you think of Bad Marie. I am about to re-read it.
I understand your frustration, Amber. When response times start to stretch into a year or longer, I do wonder what those editors are really doing. I try to keep such things in perspective. My world keeps on turning regardless, but it is something that should be talked about.
Bad Marie is a great read.
Tim, I did like the Grisham piece. It didn’t shatter my world but I didn’t need it to. I enjoyed reading about the jobs Grisham has had and wasn’t looking for deep intellectual significance. I do hate when writing is romanticized as difficult and such. You definitely have a point there. I am reminded of a recent Dear Sugar column where she talks about miners to put the relative ease of the writer’s life into perspective. That said, I find Grisham charming and felt the same way about his op-ed.
I would love to see that happen some day, but I don’t expect that pigs will become airborne any time soon.
Editor just means skilled reader. It’s a title that other readers respect. Satisfying an editor is not the only way to build up readership though–as this page testifies.
When I wrote at the tempo of lit mag response times, I did maybe 10% of the production that I do now. Slow response times, as much as anything, have damaged the craft of writing. I’m probably shooting myself in the foot for saying this, but it’s for this reason that I don’t respect simultaneous submission policies anymore for lit mags. I refuse to accept that a poem that I composed might take up to two years to find the light of day. How am I to get proper feedback in that timeframe? While waiting on an editor to validate/reject one’s writing, how is one to determine whether s/he is moving in the correct direction? No, this slow turn time is the number one thing that killed institutional lit. The next generation of ‘branded readers’ (editors) is coming from the internet, not academia.
Jeff Chon is an example of this: vis a tergo is often sweet, because Jeff has a strong affinity circle to draw upon–not just his strong reading skills & deft wit. Will magazines matter as much in the future? Probably not as much as editors and literary collectives will. In fact, we may already be in the middle of the tipping point.
Great post, Roxane. I’m curious did you read Dermansky’s first book, Twins? If so what did you think?
Too poor to buy the new one right now, and my library doesn’t have it yet.
Totally. I try to have sympathy because of the huge amount of carpet bombing, but it’s hard because when I get one of those submission, I can tell in two seconds. So I feel like those are pretty quickly eliminated. And you’re right–if a piece is under heavy consideration, fine, keep it as long as you like. But if you’re not interested, then say so right away. Another journal that actually does that pretty well is One Story. I’m sure they get a million submissions but they’re always really quick about responding to my pieces with a nice firm no. :)
Email me your address (roxane at roxanegay dot com). I’ll send you a copy. I did not read Demansky’s first book. I only recently learned of her writing but I will definitely check that out.
Well…because in some situations, you may only be submitting this story to that one place (i.e., they may have a “no simultaneous submissions” policy) in which case, that story may be held up for 14 years, only to get rejected. Assuming we only have a finite amount of short stories to send out into the world, that we write in our lifetime, be it 12 or 1200, as writers we want to publish our work in a timely manner. It’s hard enough to get into the top publications (1% acceptance rate or lower) but if you are only submitting them one at a time, this could take FOREVER, and seriously cripple any publishing you might do.
If you are simultaneously submitting, but are aiming at a top tier first (I try to submit my stories in TIERS, i.e., the top markets first, those 1%ers, the most elite, the most prestigious) and those take 14 years, again, you are spending a ridiculous amount of time on one story.
Part of the solution is to just simultaneously submit, but (and this is kind of where it works in reverse against you), many of the top places take the longest, and the “lesser” places take less time, so if using this approach, and somehow you were actually in contention for The Paris Review or The New Yorker or The Missouri Review or Ploughshares, or wherever, you could pull your own story prematurely. That would suck.
It’s complicated.
I think what the GIST of this is, Jereme, is that most literary journals don’t need six months to rejects anyone (let alone 9 months, a year, or more). Most of the time the front lines know pretty quickly what is an immediate rejection. Some that get past the first lines of defense, and to an actual editor or co-editor or assistant editor, the bulk of those will get rejected pretty quickly as well – off theme, close but not quite brilliant enough, they just RAN a story on two-headed rattlesnakes, or something else. The truth is that sure, those that are actually under consideration, they DO take time to work their way up the ladder from front lines, to assistant editor to editor and possibly to a board of some sort. But still…this process probably doesn’t need to take more than six months. If some top places can turn it around in 30 days (and there are many that do) or so, I’m certain the rest can too.
//mytwocents
. . . what those editors are really doing: about a thousand things it takes to keep a publication/press going, usually without pay and/or support, and quite often without much evidence that there is a readership to match the submittership. If some respectable percentage of submitters were also subscribers, many editors could make a living doing all those things and would be more able to, for example, find the time to delegate some of their tasks so that they could pay more attention to managing their submissions. Reading this piece, and the comments, makes me think that “submitters” see themselves as dissatisfied consumers of the submission process itself, spending the currency of their electronic text in expectation of the abstract recompense of publication. Would be great if instead, or at least in addition, they became consumers of the magazines they are submitting to. Perhaps all of you who are complaining here do subscribe to, or purchase, the journals you’re submitting to, but I know from Fence’s numbers that the numbers are crazy off, and that this creates a huge disjunction in the process of editing.
. . . what those editors are really doing: about a thousand things it takes to keep a publication/press going, usually without pay and/or support, and quite often without much evidence that there is a readership to match the submittership. If some respectable percentage of submitters were also subscribers, many editors could make a living doing all those things and would be more able to, for example, find the time to delegate some of their tasks so that they could pay more attention to managing their submissions. Reading this piece, and the comments, makes me think that “submitters” see themselves as dissatisfied consumers of the submission process itself, spending the currency of their electronic text in expectation of the abstract recompense of publication. Would be great if instead, or at least in addition, they became consumers of the magazines they are submitting to. Perhaps all of you who are complaining here do subscribe to, or purchase, the journals you’re submitting to, but I know from Fence’s numbers that the numbers are crazy off, and that this creates a huge disjunction in the process of editing.
[…] You should go get this book immediately so you can let it kick you in the face.” –HTMLGIANT “Go pick up a copy and get comfortable because you won’t be able to put it down.” […]