EDITORS | HTMLGIANT

June 30th, 2009 / 9:00 pm PHM—

Paid my rent, got me a job, cut a 5,000 word piece down to 3,500 which read faster, and kept publishing me which eventually got me laid.

June 30th, 2009 / 9:01 pm PHM—

Also, another editor bought me steak and lobster in Boston while I was homeless after rejecting me for two straight years and a month later took a poem.

June 30th, 2009 / 5:01 pm PHM—

Also, another editor bought me steak and lobster in Boston while I was homeless after rejecting me for two straight years and a month later took a poem.

June 30th, 2009 / 9:09 pm sam pink—

you’ve officially beat me in terms of revenue

June 30th, 2009 / 9:11 pm Shya—

Ouch, that’s awkward.

June 30th, 2009 / 9:22 pm PHM—

I’m reading Forecast. Just started today. On page forty-something. It’s great, seriously. Thank you for making it free to the world.

June 30th, 2009 / 9:28 pm PHM—

It comes and goes, man. It’s a great feeling to have someone commission you to write for them. I’d never turn it down. I never have. I think a lot of people to this day still get their first impressions of me from the non-fiction pieces I did for that magazine. And getting that poem published after a more than a hundred rejections under just my own name was one of the best moments of my life.

June 30th, 2009 / 9:38 pm Suzy Devere—

an editor who makes changes but who doesn’t get what you want to put out out is worse than publishing rotten work on your own, but I’m all for the right fit / the good ones. one editor said all my tenses were wrong. another told me my last lines always ruined the work. another told me my last lines were the only thing worth publishing. it’s like dating. and yes, i’m still single.

June 30th, 2009 / 10:13 pm Shya—

Thanks for reading! Forecast 42 is going live on July 16th. First chapter goes up at Juked.

June 30th, 2009 / 10:16 pm pr—

I have loved some editors and hated some editors. I discovered that editors are like people- they vary greatly. Here’s a good one- I was supposed to write about the missionary position. I decided to email some missionaries and find out what they thought. I also wrote some background on the missionary position… I handed in a draft…I got “I don’t know…it’s not quite right…” I asked, “what would you like me to do?” “hm, not sure?” was the response.
The next issue of the magazine came out and the editor herself wrote a piece about, The Missionary Position! The first line was litearally something like, “All of a sudden, I had this great idea to call up some missionaries!” I kid you not. I didn’t even get my kill fee. She wasn’t there long, that one. She was ass.

Then there was the guy who called me…”I’m really liking this story..blabla” I was screening, of course, so he’s talking into my machine. I pick up the call- super excited, it’s a really really great journal–“blabla.” I’m reading at Housing Works tonight (he was from out of town)…So I go there. I walk up and meet him. Shake hands, tell him, honestly, how much I loved his story. (He’s a good writer). And he looked me up and down- and that was it. I never heard from him again. I queried after a few months- nothing. ever. that was five years ago.

I have five million other wierd experiences.

Mostly, I like my editors- mostly, I have had great experiences. Such encouragement, such support! I heart most of my editorial experiences…

June 30th, 2009 / 10:19 pm Vaughan Simons—

‘Bad and awkward’ would definitely be successive experiences with an editor whose idea of producing youthful content – or in this case ‘yoof’ content, which is even worse – was to make changes that included misspellings and incorrect grammar. Of course, the cause could have been that he himself had no idea of certain spellings or correct grammar, I see that now.

I admit that I may be a curmudgeon, too.

June 30th, 2009 / 6:19 pm Vaughan Simons—

‘Bad and awkward’ would definitely be successive experiences with an editor whose idea of producing youthful content – or in this case ‘yoof’ content, which is even worse – was to make changes that included misspellings and incorrect grammar. Of course, the cause could have been that he himself had no idea of certain spellings or correct grammar, I see that now.

I admit that I may be a curmudgeon, too.

July 1st, 2009 / 12:58 am Scott Garson—

I had a good exper. w/ Greg Gerke last wk. He’s editing ff at Buffalo Artvoice now. I wrote something for him and sent it probably too hastily. We went back and forth a bit, and the piece clearly got better in those few days. When two different writers get in on it like that, it’s pretty interesting. In this case it was definitely good…..

July 1st, 2009 / 1:10 am akjdasjda—

all journals who have editors which say: only accepted writers will be notified.

this is the single most piss-me-the-fuck-off factor beyond no simultaneous submissions (which is a pain, but its whatever).

Okay… specific issues… well, one editor changed all the statements of a poem of mine to questions, which kind of negated the folksy tone I was going for. Didn’t bother me too much.

Umm… beyond that, there aren’t that many issues. Its usually, “we don’t like it” or “we like it, but cant accept it” or “we love this!” or “we love this, how about a few changes here or there”.

…. I’m lucky? PR, that sucks. I used to think the literature arena was the one arena where people should shed all their bullshit tactics. I used to think art was beyond that shit. Then, bing bong, people are always people, no matter if they’re dabbling in something which is greater than them and comes down from whatever ether exists.

I was cool before I started writing this and now I’m sweating almost profusely…

June 30th, 2009 / 9:36 pm pr—

haha-
don’t sweat it, man!

OK, more editorial shit talking
Again, with the phone call. If YOU CALL MY HOUSE, I”m assuming you like my work. I mean, right? So, again, I’m screening -I fucking never pick up my phone–and I hear, “This is so and so from blabla and I really like this story…” I pick up. He goes on. He says, “this one other editor (even tho he’s editor in chief) has to take a look, but I really love it, it’s for sure, just protocal.

Now, unlike the other douchebag that called ,my house, I didn’t care so much, becuase it wasn’t as “fancy” as a journal. BUT! BUT! I withdrew the piece from other places and I was psyched- how can you not be, right?

THREE MONTHS LATER. I get a paper copy of my story, marked to shit in red pen with comments like ” why doesn’t she just get an AMMNIO?” all angry like, and whatever- someone with severe meopausal rage is my only conclusion. I try to address every single thing- send it back- and a couple weeks later I get a sheepish, “we are passinng, send more stuff!!!” I send more stuff- this time, I get a quick rejection. (all from the dude). A few months later, I meet the guy at a reading. Another editor, who had published me says, as we stand there together, “He thinks you’re a bad(or unhappy, I forget) mother.”

THIS IS A FICTION EDITOR. I SUBMITTED A PIECE OF FICTION!!!!!

Anyway, retards all over. All I can say is, now I know to steer clear of that man for the rest of my life. I mean, really.

Oh shit, now I’m sweating. I know-I ‘ll pour a stiff one and start smoking.

June 30th, 2009 / 10:10 pm sam pink—

michael kimball seems good

June 30th, 2009 / 11:59 pm Lincoln—

Well, I won’t bother naming the magazine cause whatevs but awhile back I had a piece accepted to the print issue of this magazine and the editor was very nice and praising. Said he would follow up closer to the date. I didn’t hear anything for a full two years, but I checked back every few months to see if the issue was coming out. After two years, it was announced with some rad names but mine not included. I emailed the guy, he was apologetic “sorry I loved your piece but I forgot to tell you we changed the theme of the issue and it didn’t fit, I’d love to publish it online though.” I said fuck it, alright you can use it online. Never heard back….

July 1st, 2009 / 10:14 am david erlewine—

no one has mentioned lee klein?

he once told me that the story i wrote made him want to come find me so he could smack me. I think he meant it in a way that wasn’t quite as bad as it sounds. more like in the i’m your older brother way and you’re a fuck up who thinks he’s funny and insightful and needs to learn he’s not. a few hours later the story got taken by identity theory so yeah all is right with the world. i’ve had a few more interesting experiences with lee since then. he’s pretty much banned from subbing anymore.

July 1st, 2009 / 10:16 am david erlewine—

I had a similar experience with Steve Himmer at Necessary Fiction. He took the piece and then made some questions that resulted in edits mightily strengthening the piece. i’m ashamed, actually, that i sent it too hastily. i’m really trying to work on not doing that.

July 1st, 2009 / 2:17 pm david erlewine—

the suggestins sp was meant to be ironic. seriously. please believe me.

July 1st, 2009 / 10:17 am david erlewine—

the suggestins sp was meant to be ironic. seriously. please believe me.

July 1st, 2009 / 10:18 am david erlewine—

now i’m feeling fragile

July 1st, 2009 / 10:35 am pr—

he banned you from submitting at eyeshot? confused-

July 1st, 2009 / 1:28 pm david erlewine—

he made it clear i shouldn’t send anything else in. i’m using the word “banned” loosely. he has no problem sending me form rejections.

July 1st, 2009 / 1:34 pm Nathan Tyree—

I wish lee would ban me

July 1st, 2009 / 2:49 pm ADRIAN—

One time an editor published one of my poems. I’ve never written a poem in my life. !?!?

July 1st, 2009 / 2:52 pm david erlewine—

ha! it’s truly for my own good. the idea of sending it under a pseudonym is tempting…but who the fuck am i kidding? the dude just ain’t a fan…

July 1st, 2009 / 3:00 pm david erlewine—

ha! i read a story once at an austin barnes and noble at one of their weekly “readings”. i was the first to go. my story was about a mother dying while her son is in prison and he uses his imprisonment as an excuse not to go to the funeral (the warden or whatever was okay with him going, escorted). afterward, some folks came up to me and told me i was the worst son ever. turns out everyone read non-fiction there…

July 1st, 2009 / 3:45 pm Nathan Tyree—

that’s a bit odd

July 2nd, 2009 / 3:30 am PHM—

Skull-fuck Eyeshot. I say that with all the clarity and maturity I can muster when thinking about the URL-rejections I received the few times I submitted anything. Downright hostile, that mag.

July 2nd, 2009 / 7:52 am +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

FYI: In an effort to curb further downright hostilities, and also to celebrate our 10th summer online, Eyeshot has banned everyone from submititng, pretty much forever after . . .

July 2nd, 2009 / 7:59 am PHM—

Just make it forever. It’s time for you to move on. I’m sure The Paris Review needs someone to mail out form rejections for them. Or All-Story or something. Maybe you should go work for Bank of America. Just hand out URLs to loan applicants who don’t offer to suck your dick.

July 2nd, 2009 / 8:48 am +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

Skullfck yourself to high heaven, PHM. How many personalized, often helpful, nearly immediate rejections were sent out over the years? The page the link goes to apologizes for the terribleness of the form letter, and says most likely things are too hectic to reply in depth: http://eyeshot.net/thanks.html – And sometimes some submitters seemed like they’d never looked at anything that had ever been posted on the site, so why should any time be spent on them in response? Anyway, interactions like this, posts like your last one, are the sort of thing that makes one wanna disconnect forever, not to mention cease reading subs or whatnot.

July 2nd, 2009 / 9:24 am +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

Mr. Erlewine holds the record for most rejected submissions, many of which received immediate, personalized, in-depth responses.

July 2nd, 2009 / 10:05 am david erlewine—

I believe, off the top of my head, that Eyeshot rejected me at least 7-10 times in 2002-2003 and then another 7-10 times in 2008-09. The majority of the rejections came very quickly and showed that Lee had read/gotten the story but just didn’t like it/think much of it. Also, in 2008-09 I had the option of requesting a form rejection if I didn’t want to hear why Lee didn’t like it. I thought that was pretty cool.

Kudos on 10 years. Perhaps you’ll accept one more thing I’ll send in under Alice Hoffman’s name. Then I can get on twitter and rail on your rude rejection and give out your phone number. Maybe Gawker would cover it? Not a bad way to bring attention to the 10-year anniversary.

July 2nd, 2009 / 10:17 am Nathan Tyree—

That’s beautiful

July 2nd, 2009 / 11:53 am Blake Butler—

lee klein says it like it is. he is a treasure.

July 2nd, 2009 / 11:58 am Blake Butler—

i will also add that the eyeshot sub guidelines are amazing:

“DO NOT SEND ANYTHING if your e-mail address includes the words writer, write, poet, or anything similar. If you are under 17 years of age, it’s ok. But otherwise, please do not submit. (Serious!) ”

yesssss

July 2nd, 2009 / 12:04 pm PHM—

Is that all it’s going to take?

July 2nd, 2009 / 12:17 pm PHM—

Look, maybe I’m being an asshole. If I were in Lee Klein’s shoes I MIGHT react similarly. Or I might take into consideration the anger and modify my behavior accordingly. Probably I wouldn’t have said anything at all. All things being equal, form rejections or even form acceptances are as bad as those submissions which one can tell did not take the publication into account. I know that I have never submitted to a magazine without researching it first. Many of my first were fairly new electronic magazines so it was easy to read everything. For my recent submission to Juked I read the entire available archives up until February before deciding what to send. I am rambling. All I’m saying is that Eyeshot, in its current and past format (and in my opinion) offers little but frustration to the earnest writer. It’s status is exemplary of my theory that long-standing electronic publications get a lot more prestige than some of them are worth based solely on their willingness to survive. Juked and FRiGG and SmokeLong have all been around quite some time as well yet somehow they bring more to the table in my view. Really, I have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m sorry I couldn’t keep my mouth shut. I’m not even friends with David Erlewine or anything. I just felt compelled to share my own feelings about Eyeshot, and the prospect of it potentially closing down forever brought me some happiness for a moment. Now I’ve been an asshole, I suppose, and so this is the last I’ll say on the matter in this forum.

July 2nd, 2009 / 12:59 pm Michelle—

Just had an editor tell me my story was interesting but after reading it (twice!) she STILL couldn’t understand why the character did xyz at the end. I don’t know what she was reading , but that wasn’t in my story at all! I have also had one particular editor reject a story 3 times, which was astonishing the second time, kind of laughable the third. Bad record keeping or wanting to just push the poison arrow in a little harder? Who knows.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:11 pm Jimmy Chen—

I’m tempted to write a post about this, but I’ll spare myself.

Lee Klein and Scott Garson in my mind are the most thoughtful editors online; their acceptances and rejections both show an understanding — and more importantly — and intuition of what they want to publish. Also, I should note that Kurt Luchs of the big jewel and his team will tireless ‘rip apart’ your piece earnestly, fanatically going over each word. Regardless of one’s philosophy about editing (some believe it should be a simple yes or no without changes), my point is that editing is pretty much volunteer work for free. And if you think people edit because of egos, trust me, the really big egos are the ones that write.

Without editors, there would be an awful lot of horrible stories floating around. Thank God editors like Lee Klein, John Wang, Scott Garson, Chris Monks, Josh Abraham, Rusty Barnes, Matt DiGangi, Blake Butler, David Clapper, Cooper Renner, JA Tyler, etc. tirelessly read other people’s work – some of them while trying to write themselves. And please, I’m not ingratiating myself. Damn, I’m so paranoid here.

PHM’s frustration towards who he perceives as an ‘impenetrable’ editor (i.e. Klein) is understandable (I’ve felt/feel that way towards certain editors/journals – I think we all do), but ultimately small and careless, because the rules are fucking simple: write a story that makes them want to publish it. There’s no secret handshake or evil alliance. If you delude yourself into believing that, great, you’ll never have to become a better writer.

Writers tend to think because they wrote something, under the auspices of their misunderstood genius, that it warrants a publication – and not only that, but they are entitled to hold the editor accountable for the grave trespassing of rejecting a piece.

It saddens me to think that PHM may have been the straw to break eyeshot’s back – a journal that is noticeably getting “tired” and reticently irritated by each new journal that sprouts up every day. Online literature is completely over-saturated and leans on the legitimacy that older decade devoted journals like eyeshot provide. Maybe this was bound to happen. Maybe this is why, fundamentally, people think/agree print is better: you can’t make a jack-ass-hole comment in print.

I respect PHM tremendously for being in Iraq, but if his online anger is a measure of his temperament, I don’t want him holding a gun.

July 2nd, 2009 / 5:17 pm darby—

i don’t know. i think the internets a big place. to see any online venue for lit die is sad, regardless of whether you agree with their methods or enjoy what they deliver.

lee is awesome i think, not that i’m biased cuz my works been in eyeshot, but because he’s one of the few responders that gets down and dirty with writers. phm is awesome in a similar way i think. anyone that scrapes off the salt and gets to the nut is rad in my bible.

viva eyeshot

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:17 pm darby—

i don’t know. i think the internets a big place. to see any online venue for lit die is sad, regardless of whether you agree with their methods or enjoy what they deliver.

lee is awesome i think, not that i’m biased cuz my works been in eyeshot, but because he’s one of the few responders that gets down and dirty with writers. phm is awesome in a similar way i think. anyone that scrapes off the salt and gets to the nut is rad in my bible.

viva eyeshot

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:25 pm Nathan Tyree—

People don’t get Lee. They take his passion (if that’s the right word) as cruelty (and he can be mean – the man seems to take a little pleasure in attacking minor things). That he feels so strongly is what makes him a good editor.

Honestly, I doubt that Eyeshot is going away (or that if it does it will be because of PH).

Just my thoughts.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:32 pm PHM—

A rejection which consists of a link doesn’t say anything except “fuck you very much.” It’s better not to send anything at all. I have a bunch of submissions I haven’t read right now. They all followed the guidelines, therefore they all deserve a fair chance. They spent as much time working on their story as I’ll spend editing if I choose to accept. Regardless of how they go, which, of course, most or all of them will not succeed, they will all get a personalized rejection. Some rejections are more detailed and heartfelt than others but none of them are simple “Thanks for submitting to dispatch. We cannot use your work at this time. Please understand the volume blah blah…”

Online anger.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:33 pm Jimmy Chen—

an editor does not owe you anything because you submitted to them

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:34 pm Ryan Call—

here’s two editors who i respect, though im specifically talking about in their capacity as book-review-editors (not that i dont respect them outside of that): scott esposito of the quarterly conversation and matt bell when he was doing newpages bookreviews. both have worked to help me with my reviews (however short or long, whatever purpose, etc): they ask good questions, help turn the reviews in more interesting directions, and also edit down some of my wordier, clunky sentences. they are flexible and patient with me, despite my inability to meet deadlines. i like writing for btoh of them.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:35 pm +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

First, please spell “Lee Klein” properly — it’s spelled “+!O0o(o)o0O!+” – second, Eyeshot’s heydey was summer 2000 to early 2004 or so. Comparatively, it’s been more or less running on fumes for five years. Whatever meager prestige you refer to probably derives more from its early years than its endurance. The site won’t end, by the way — just the traditional submission process.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:38 pm david erlewine—

As the formally-acknowledged person most rejected by Eyeshot, I would like to add a quick comment. Lee has read a lot of awful shit that I’ve sent him. Nearly every time, he sent me a quick, personalized response that showed he had spent time reading my story and had some ideas how to make it better or at least explaining why it sucked. Rarely did he get back to me more than one or two hours later.

Writer Roxane Gay (and assoc editor of Pank) posted on her blog recently about defending the form rejection letter. I won’t butcher what she said but one of her points was that many writers just don’t want to hear why their stories don’t work and it’s easier to post a “no thanks”. Like a lot of writers, I often have trouble separating myself from my stories, particularly when the narrator is sorta like me. So, yeah, sometimes Lee’s smackdowns of my stories were like jabs to my nose but I learned from them. Of course sometimes I took his tone to be somewhat condescending but JESUS I was the one bombarding him with stories for his journal!

I was a reader/editor for a short time at Dogzplot. As Jimmy alluded to, I have no idea how editors like Scott and Lee and Barry Graham come back with personal responses to so many stories while writing so much stuff on their own. My short time reading at Dogzplot made me appreciate editors like that. I was becoming annoyed as hell with certain writers that kept sending “the same fucking story” back to us immediately upon receiving rejections. I hated how annoyed I got but I had trouble reading their work objectively and not being annoyed at them. I of course realized how foolish I had been years ago to “wear down” Lee.

In any event, I hope Eyeshot will hang on. I’ve enjoyed many stories there. As Darby says, Lee does get down and dirty with writers. I still laugh at the very first story I sent him. It was a piece of shit and in the cover letter I listed every journal I’d ever been in (including my college rag). He immediately rejected it and suggested I read some David Foster Wallace, who he said had written a similar story only much better. I immediately sent something else in. He thanked me but said it was even worse than the first one. Then I sent a third one (THE SAME NIGHT) and he asked for my address so he could smack some sense into me. I was “young” and thought I’d convince him of my genius.

Let us not forget that the guy has been published in places like AGNI and Black Warrior Review. I’ve read a lot of his stuff and it’s very good. I take that into account when he comes back at me with snappy retorts.

July 2nd, 2009 / 5:39 pm david erlewine—

“the man seems to take a little pleasure in attacking minor things”

Ha, well said, Nate.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:39 pm david erlewine—

“the man seems to take a little pleasure in attacking minor things”

Ha, well said, Nate.

July 2nd, 2009 / 5:41 pm david erlewine—

those minor things in my stories have bothered me because they take away from the story and sometimes I get pissed because he’s right and I’m defensive that I sent the story out without fixing it first. I’m impatient above all else, as has been pointed out to me by some good writer friends/editors. I do myself a disservice by subbing stuff too soon.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:41 pm david erlewine—

those minor things in my stories have bothered me because they take away from the story and sometimes I get pissed because he’s right and I’m defensive that I sent the story out without fixing it first. I’m impatient above all else, as has been pointed out to me by some good writer friends/editors. I do myself a disservice by subbing stuff too soon.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:43 pm +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

If you click the link, there are words, and some of those words are linked to other things that you might like, on a page formatted the color of Neapolitan ice cream (inspired by the dramatic conclusion of 2666). The link was never intended as an FU, just something to save us all time at a time when, for me, there wasn’t much time to devote to responding to submissions. Sorry for any perceived invective, PHM . . .

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:45 pm david erlewine—

Roxane Gay is quickly taking over the literaly world. Ryan, she is Erlewining Duotrope these days. I can’t keep track of her acceptances. She’s a real pleasure to interact with…a funny writer/editor and so damn nice/cool/prescient.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:52 pm +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

For the love of god, there should be a period after “ha” or an exclamation point, not a freakin’ comma! I mean, really . . .

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:56 pm +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

Not sure what it means yet. Maybe a long application process (featuring a true/false and multiple choice test, with very important essay section and references from writers and/or faith healers) or a series of physical challenges that must be completed before one can submit . . . we’ll see.

July 2nd, 2009 / 1:58 pm Nathan Tyree—

“For the love of god, there should be a period after “ha” or an exclamation point, not a freakin’ comma! I mean, really . . .”

Nicely played, sir.

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:02 pm david erlewine—

Ha, that actually made me laugh…

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:03 pm darby—

i think really oppositely than that as an editor, but i don’t want to say the as an attempt to change a mindset. I value the mindset you have and the one lee has, each has his* own ethic when it comes to things as subjective as all this.

I don’t give much a shit about personalized responses these days. maybe i used to, but I try to avoid attempts to dialogue with editors, or as an editor dialogue with writers, concerning the merit of this artform. I’m really just wanting/giving quick yes or nos. I don’t see a reason to ‘personalize’ the process at the sacrifice of expediency. All this ‘did they follow the guidelines’ and ‘were they nice to me’ is just baggage in the way of finding art. Why do editors get so angry over this silly etiquette? Why do editors write submission guidelines that take a half hour to read and understand? Wrtier’s are submitting for publication, not for a critique. If an editor is spending more time critiqueing pieces they are passing on than they are being concerned with what they are publishing, than I think that is silly and also kind of haughty, as if I, who simply proclaimed I AM AN EDITOR has something of objective value to say about anything. Writers need to stop relying on editors to tell them what their fiction should be like and instead, read more, write more, read more, write more, love it, read more, read, quit writing for awhile and read more, read, join a workshop, submit to dzancs creative writing sessions, write some more, read something monumental, attempt to write like that but make it a little different, play around, have fun, jump into a swimming pool, get married, have kids, send your kids to college and then begin writing for real.

*that’s right, i used ‘his,’ not ‘her’ as a default hypothetical, want to fight about it?

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:12 pm PHM—

And Jimmy Chen wins the prize for most ridiculous statement this week.

If editors took the kind of begrudging and priggish attitude to potential contributors that you suggest, Jimmy Chen, then everything would be different. The truth is that potential contributors are for many publications their very lifeblood, and I doubt the publication in question is in any way an exception.

Every submission deserves a response. For dispatch litareview (http://litareview.com, the magazine I first founded in 2005, in case you were sleeping), I have a few things that will cause me to not read a submission at all. In no instance will I read a submission that didn’t follow what I consider the cardinal members of my slim guidelines. The reason I give, if I inform the writer of their mistake, which often I don’t bother because it’s not their place to waste my time (it’s mine to decide to waste it), is simply that there are a multitude of solid writers who did have enough consideration to adhere to the guidelines. I still respond to their submissions. Because it’s not that much effort and one day they might actually take four seconds to read my guidelines, smack themselves in the head, and try again, and maybe then I’ll find out that I was missing out the whole time.

Every submission deserves a response. What you seem to advocate is some sort of dark ages which I think ended around the time I started submitting to online journals and my generation grew old enough to buy cigarettes. Some of the earliest submissions we got in the poetry department were actually as parts of mailing lists to hundreds of electronic journals. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen any of that, but I never saw it much with fiction writers anyhow.

Every submission IS OWED a response. Not a URL. A response. “Dear P. H. Madore, Thank you for your submission of X. We’re swamped right now, man, so the first few lines didn’t take. Feel free to try again. -Editor” Remember, the editor was the one to ask for submissions in the first place. The writer didn’t go out and say, “Dear Editor, Are you wanting some unsolicited submissions? Well, either way, here is some work for you to consider.” No, they discovered by whatever means that the publication was taking submissions and took it upon themselves to give it a whirl.

It’s funny that you invoked the name of Matt DiGangi, an editor I have much respect for and who will, if he sees what you’ve said here, likely very much disagree with you. I’ve never heard of him giving a form rejection or any sort of rejection which didn’t take the actual work up for consideration into consideration (and I’ve been rejected by him more than 100 documented times, so go ahead and tell me I’m crazy.)

In short, Jimmy Chen, if you think “an editor does not owe [an aspiring contributor] anything because [the aspiring contributor] submitted to [their magazine, be it The Paris Review or dispatch litareview],” then you are out of your fucking mind, and that’s all there is to it.

P. H. M.

P. S. – Online anger.

July 2nd, 2009 / 6:16 pm PHM—

Lee,

Apology accepted. It’s been years now, but ever since, I had a sour taste in my mouth every time someone mentioned your magazine. And then earlier this year your magazine took a prize I felt rightly belonged to another writer, and so I was even more angry. Anyways, people seem to like you guys despite the URL thing, which isn’t to say that I agree with it. In sincerity, time is a regenerating thing. If you can’t respond to a submission today, then wait until the day comes that you can.

Sorry your magazine had to become the catalyst for all of this, but seems like this discussion was waiting to take place in one topic or another. Jimmy Chen’s been waiting to bring up my profession, surely, ever since he wrote nastily about it on his website.

Well then.

Yes, I guess there is peace between us now. I still don’t agree with the practice of a URL as response to submission, but I appreciate your apology.

P. H. Madore

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:16 pm PHM—

Lee,

Apology accepted. It’s been years now, but ever since, I had a sour taste in my mouth every time someone mentioned your magazine. And then earlier this year your magazine took a prize I felt rightly belonged to another writer, and so I was even more angry. Anyways, people seem to like you guys despite the URL thing, which isn’t to say that I agree with it. In sincerity, time is a regenerating thing. If you can’t respond to a submission today, then wait until the day comes that you can.

Sorry your magazine had to become the catalyst for all of this, but seems like this discussion was waiting to take place in one topic or another. Jimmy Chen’s been waiting to bring up my profession, surely, ever since he wrote nastily about it on his website.

Well then.

Yes, I guess there is peace between us now. I still don’t agree with the practice of a URL as response to submission, but I appreciate your apology.

P. H. Madore

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:24 pm darby—

and that’s cool. my issue is I don’t want to help writers, i think, if I’m being completely honest. I want them to help themselves or find help elsewhere, I don’t want to be anyone’s teacher. Is being a teacher an inherent trait of being an editor? I’m only concerned with finding something to put up. it’s a selfish endevour, so anything that gets in the way of that I disregard. Also, w/r/t what abjective is running, it’s not usually straight narrative fiction. Sometimes I just read the first sentence and if it’s too narrative driven and I’m not in the mood i pass on it, and in those cases what do I say, sorry your story was too storyish. I don’t want to have to think about what to say, or how to respond, I’m not good at that maybe, other editors are better at that.

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:30 pm +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

After several years of responding pretty much immediately and personally and well beyond what’s expected etc to a few thousand submissions, if I occasionally want to send a link to a form rejection page an hour or so after I receive a submission, I’ll do so . . . I’ve recently sent out the link maybe 50% of the time (consult duotrope). Peace, yo.

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:34 pm Jimmy Chen—

i never wrote nastily about your profession PHM. i just said you used anal lube. that’s a huge difference, like 2″ diameter.

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:36 pm Angi—

I guess I’m in the “don’t really care about personalized responses” camp. I appreciate them, but generally I’d rather have a quicker answer than a personal response, and I get that both aren’t always possible. There are times when the personal response really makes a difference in some way, like Roxanne rejected a story of mine months back, but took the time to write me a personal note and tell me she really liked the piece but it didn’t fit for whatever reason. So when I had something finished that I thought was different but in sort of a similar vein as the rejected one, I sent it to Pank right away and they took it. It was definitely one of those rejection-leads-to-acceptance scenarios. Or, if an editor wants to make suggestions and then wants to see the rewrite, that’s cool with me. I’m in the middle of that now, and I don’t know yet if the revised piece will be accepted, but regardless it’s a better story now than it was before, so it’s all good. I certainly don’t mind personal rejections under any circumstances, but I don’t feel entitled to them.

The story that was rejected by Pank is I think my most rejected story, but everyone seems to like it and want me to send other things, they just don’t want that one. It’s always a bridesmaid, that story.

I’ve never received a harsh or cruel personal rejection. Unless you count many years ago, when I was submitting things and probably shouldn’t have been, and I got a handwritten rejection on a torn off piece of a paper bag. The words were generic and not mean, but the paper bag made them feel mean. But also kind of funny.

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:42 pm Jimmy Chen—

i disagree with you PHM. when i submit a piece, i don’t expect a response, and i often don’t get one. this enables me to be a calm relatively well-adjusted person who doesn’t publicly lunge at an editor he feels has wronged him.

and what i mean was, say, if you submitted to NOO, then mike young could read it, or delete it b/c he don’t like your name, or delete it because he was depressed that night, or he could accept it, or reject it and tell you nicely, or reject it and tell you meanly, or not even tell you. or mike young could unpublish me because i stole his girlfriend, or he could start a blog called “jimmy chen is a fag.” my point is there are no rules — and people who think there are rules will invariably grow bitter at this unruly world, which is what has happened to you PHM.

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:44 pm +!O0o(o)o0O!+—

In 1997, an editor at the Chicago Review responded to a submission I sent with a bunch of handwritten pointers — small things in the story that distracted greatly and some other abstract things I might want to think about. I didn’t appreciate it at all for about a year until I read them again . . . So, I think you can help sometimes, even if it’s just trying to raise the bar for someone a little bit, pointing out small sinkholes etc. Not that editors need to do it, but if they have the compulsion to do so, as I did, why not? Anyway . . .

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:46 pm Blake Butler—

i agree with jimmy. it is not a contract. it is a thing that happens. or doesn’t happen.

life is life.

July 2nd, 2009 / 2:50 pm PHM—

I suppose we all reap what we sow. I think of 8 or 900 submissions only a handful were never responded to.

July 2nd, 2009 / 3:42 pm Nathan Tyree—

Jimmy

They owe a response. Does not matter what the response is. It can be detailed, or simply the words “not for us”. Or even, “get fucked asshat”. But not responding to a submission is a sin. Every time an editor chooses to ignore a sub, there is some poor bastard waiting, checking the mail box or the inbox, sweating, not sending their work to another publication. If you choose (choose) to edit a journal, you owe submitters a response. Any magazine (ezine, etc) that says in their guidelines that they may not respond does not deserve submissions.

July 2nd, 2009 / 3:58 pm Vaughan Simons—

I can see the point of both arguments in the debate above, and yet disagree with much of what’s being said, too.

I think, considering that in most cases we are talking about rejections made electronically, if an editor has bothered to read a piece of work that’s been submitted to them, what’s the big deal with spending two extra seconds sending out even a form rejection email? Doesn’t that at least show the writer the courtesy of saying “we didn’t like this, but now you can go ahead and submit it elsewhere and not be hanging on waiting and never knowing?” After all, with some magazines having response times of three, four or five months, how is the person who submits their work supposed to know when to call it quits if they haven’t received a reply?

They call it common courtesy for a reason – not replying is just plain rude and dismissive. Fact.

Oh, and if you don’t have time to do even this, if you don’t have time to read the submissions you receive, there’s a simple solution – don’t run a literary magazine because your life’s too busy. Not rocket science, that one.

Then again, no, I would not expect editors to send personal responses each time, explaining the whys and wherefores of why they didn’t like a particular submission. That would be crazy. All that I think most writers want when sending submissions is a) an idea of when their work will be read and responded to; b) the knowledge that they will receive a response, even if it does take months.

July 2nd, 2009 / 4:07 pm Vaughan Simons—

Yeah, I have to say that Nathan’s got it right. If you choose to edit a journal – choose, remember; it’s not like some mystical spirit appeared to you on a flaming horse and said “edit a journal! or else!” – then have the fucking decency to respond to the people who like what you do and decide to send you a piece of their work. They’re the ones keeping it alive, after all.

July 2nd, 2009 / 4:40 pm Roxane—

With all due respect, I think form rejections are necessary and important and just fine. To compare them to subs where the author hasn’t read the magazine is apples and kumquats. It is wholly unrealistic to expect editors to send a personal rejection to every writer. I don’t have the kind of time it would take to tell 400 or so writers each month why their writing didn’t work for me. I have a life and more than that, sometimes, I really don’t know what I would say about a piece that I’m rejecting. I don’t like to be mean to writers so I’d rather say nothing at all. I’ve gotten a personal rejection and a form rejection from Eyeshot and I didn’t feel bad about either one. I didn’t find them rude. They were both appropriate.

July 2nd, 2009 / 8:44 pm Nathan Tyree—

I agree.

Nothing wrong with form rejections.

July 2nd, 2009 / 4:45 pm Laura Ellen Scott—

Tom Dooley (Eclectica) and Anthony Neil Smith (Mississippi Review & Plots With Guns) were great with me, identifying problems with the stories I submitted (too long, ending peters out, too fancy-pantsed), but trusting *me* to be the writer. I take instruction well, especially when it’s delivered with respect.

love eyeshot. love michelle’s story DEDICATED TO ME. but I stopped submitting after the rejection message: “Strike Two!” I may finish the game one day.

July 2nd, 2009 / 4:56 pm Roxane—

I think I’m lucky. I’ve only dealt with a very few bad editors. I also don’t mind form rejections. I am not special. I do not need a parade. What I do mind is waiting 2111 days and counting.

So, great editors–Steve Himmer at Necessary Fiction. He took a story of mine and made some editorial suggestions that made my story a completely different thing and now that different thing is going to be my first novel. It was just crazy what he did with that piece. We had a really nice exchange and I wholly credit the success of that story to him.

Lauren Becker sliced and diced a 700 word story of mine to like 250 words and when I really looked hard at the new story, it was amazing. She has a remarkable eye for paring things down and really getting to the skeleton of a story.

Matt Bell is a really thoughtful editor. I blogged over at PANK about working with him via Dzanc. I have no doubt he is bringing that same care and insight to The Collagist.

Finally, Steven McDermott at Storyglossia. He is committed and passionate and always interested in serving the story first. I think he’s another super editor.

July 2nd, 2009 / 5:08 pm PHM—

A form rejection is an editor’s easy button. There should be some evidence that the piece was given a fair chance. I used to receive form rejections from SmokeLong quarterly three times per quarter. Eventually I accused them of being an in-crowd and, what do you know, everyone’s getting personal rejections back from SLQ these days, or so it seems. Everyone’s still getting rejected, sure, but you’re not seeing the same writer two and three issues in a row, either, are you?

Ask the people who’ve been rejected by me this year. It’s not like I write a 2,000 word letter about each submission. In fact let me look here. Of the last nine rejections that I sent, none went over five sentences, none read the same as the next. It’s not like I broke it down and gave them an analysis. My policy is to read the first three sentences, then the first three paragraphs, then the entire piece. If it passes that, then I reflect.

Thus: if the first three sentences don’t excite me, I’ll reject on those grounds. If the first three paragraphs fail to keep me interested, I’ll reject on those grounds. If the whole piece is readable but I couldn’t remember what happened the next morning, then I’ll reject on those grounds. I could probably tell all the stories I’ve published this year, and I intend to keep it that way. All the same, there have been plenty of solid submissions that I let go.

What I am getting at is simple: form rejections are offensive and counter-productive. They are not a new idea and anyone advocating them is not any the smarter for it. My definition of a form rejection is a text file that is pasted from. It’s pure laziness and there are more deserving journals.

I never feel more unwelcome in a house than when someone says “here’s a beer” without asking if I want a beer. Maybe I wanted a glass of water. If you’re having a party with 400 guests, it’s not like you ration out exactly what each of them is going to consume of your pantry. That sounds more like catering than partying. Form rejections are the catering of editing.

That’s about all the rationale I have. This argument is older than this website and most of the journals mentioned. I’ve never modified my position on it and somehow I remain gimmick free. Small wonders.

Good night.

P. H. Madore

July 2nd, 2009 / 5:18 pm Alicia—

+!O0o(o)o0O!+ said: First, please spell “Lee Klein” properly — it’s spelled “+!O0o(o)o0O!+”

But — +!O0(o)o0O!+ is a palindrome, and “Lee Klein” spelled backwards is “Nielk Eel”. It is illogical. It don’t compuke.

And yay! That means my Eyeshot story came in the Eyeshot heyday! Yay! Heyday!

Yay!

July 2nd, 2009 / 5:58 pm ravi—

The first story I sent to Lee was a rejection/rewrite request. He gave me some advice on how to fix the second half of the story. But I ignored the advice and sent it to another journal that accepted it. (I didn’t know much about this other journal, but they had a nice looking website.) Then I was reading through the story again, post-acceptance, and realized that my ending was shitty and Lee was totally right about the second half, so I fixed it per his input. Then I sent the revised second half to the other editor and he said he liked it but was too busy to deal with last-minute edits from writers (example of bad editor). So I got pissed and pulled the story. The good version was published soon after that in a journal that starts with “tit”. Moral of the story: +!O0o(o)o0O!+ is all-knowing.

July 2nd, 2009 / 6:13 pm Blake Butler—

to each his own

if you don’t like the policy, don’t submit? i guess that’s one way they get weeded out

thats nice that you take the time for each, but not everyone wants to do that, and no one is obligated to do that

again, this is not a democracy.

July 2nd, 2009 / 6:28 pm PHM—

Oh, don’t get me wrong. A form rejection is better than no response at all. Form rejections are like carry overs from the print days when it was easier to photostat a ton of rejection letters than it was to type up (with a typewriter) individual rejections. Something.

Anyway, point is I’ll still submit to the high visibility magazines despite knowing that they don’t care who I am. I don’t think they’re more privileged or anything, but I do know that I want to be published in them one day. Us Weekly etc.

July 2nd, 2009 / 6:58 pm Tim Jones-Yelvington—

Is it too late to add to this thread?

An editor once praised but still rejected a piece because he didn’t think I wrote convincingly as a woman.

The story’s narrator was male.

So I added a sentence early in the piece to clarify gender and the story was later accepted by Wigleaf.

It was actually an important learning experience — I realized that the whole “readers will assume your character is the same gender as you until you tell them otherwise” line does not apply when your narrator begins the piece fantasizing about getting fucked by a dude.

The pitfalls of writing as a Queer and not always realizing what unconscious assumptions most of the rest of the world brings to the table. …Can be like a kind of reverse naivete.

July 2nd, 2009 / 7:00 pm Tim Jones-Yelvington—

I meant for that to appear on the bottom, not in the Roxane thread.

But I agree Roxane is awesome — a wonderful editor and she’s doing so much to contribute to the broader online lit community/communities.

I also really like her stories, esp the ones in decomp and You Must be this Tall to Ride.

July 2nd, 2009 / 7:05 pm Nathan (Nate) Tyree—

I like this conversation

July 5th, 2009 / 9:18 am Ross Brighton—

Issue One was it?

July 6th, 2009 / 4:16 pm Clapper—

Huh. I wonder who’s sending out all the personal rejections. It ain’t me. I’m form, form, form, baby. Know why? Because some writers want personalized rejections, some want form. And it’s impossible to know which are which. I used to assume that all writers wanted personal rejections (I like them personally), so in the beginning, ALL of my rejections were personalized. In many cases, I even recommended more appropriate markets. And then the hostile replies started coming. “Who asked you?!” but with more profanity. So… since I don’t (and can’t) know what every writer wants: form, form, form, baby.

(There are, of course, exceptions to this: when I absolutely know the writer well enough to know that (s)he likes more personal rejections. But they’re rare.)

177 Comments

Archives

Meta