Since writers keep sending in simultaneous submissions, even though I make it obvious how much we'd rather they not, I'm thinking of changing our process around so that our editors don't need to reply to submitted work unless it's for acceptancecs.
How much would that piss you off?
How much would I care?
How much am I doing this for myself vs how much am I doing it for you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
TJ writes a good rejection. It'd be a shame.
Do it. The worst thing in the world is reading a pile of subs, getting all the way to a favorite, sending out the rejections, only to find the one you chose is not available. It leaves us high and dry.
I'm still new to this thing and the only slush pile I have on my desk is stuff written by me, so grain of salt and all that.
I don't have a problem with journals that don't allow simultaneous submissions as long as their response time is fast.
It's hard on both sides. A response of some sort, even a rejection, means that the wonder can be put to rest. However, if the policy is to respond only to acceptances, then a hard cut off date would be necessary, yes?
If you haven't heard from within [some time frame] then you've been rejected. Move on.
Is there any good way to deal with simultaneous submissions? I imagine they have annoyed editors of venues large and small for as long as there has been open-submissions literary journals.
Could try blacklisting violators. But if they are submitting simultaneously, they probably don't care about Thieves Jargon enough to give a damn.
The proposed method of removing rejection letters would probably result in an extra burden of query emails.
Rejection letters are valuable. They allow the editor to encourage/discourage by how much/little is said.
then i'd lose my job, which by the way, i haven't done in a few weeks, hint, hint.
This is a pretty cool discussion to follow.
It shouldn't be that big of a deal to follow the rules, especially when all you have to do is send off an email and someone puts your shiz up for you, but at the same time I'd offer that there's prolly a lot of ppl trying to find their voice or become a famous writer [or whatever their deal is] who don't really understand what simultaneous submissions are/means or the situations they can create.
But you most likely didn't mean the uninformed. IDK.
Either way, it's pretty cool to hang out on your blog and think about some of the issues facing the production of writing.
I mean. I've seen every video on Pornhub like twenty times. I totally needed a diversion.
1. How much would that piss you off?
As a writer, I probably wouldn't even submit. Fuck mags that don't send rejections. As a co-editor, I'd feel like shit for not sending SOME kind of response.
2. How much would I care?
Your tuff talk doesn't fool me DiGangi. A cavalier attitude toward people who want to get in your mag doesn't help anybody.
3.How much am I doing this for myself vs how much am I doing it for you?
N/A. You're frustrated as hell because you and your co-editors put forth a lot of effort to keep response time low and send "good" rejections. So, when someone says "nevermind, it was taken by another mag" it feels like a big FUCK YOU.
My opinion: Change the submission guidelines to read ABSOLUTELY NO SIM SUBS. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME AND I KNOW PEOPLE-YOUR SIM SUB ACCEPTED ELSEWHERE WILL BE THE LAST!!! or something like that. If someone notifies you of a piece being accepted elsewhere after that, congratulate them and let them know they should not submit to TJ ever again.
No sim subs at a mag that has a 7 month response time is one thing, but with a response time like TJ's no sim subs seems appropiate.
If you can't let that shit roll off your backs, you guys shouldn't be in the publishing business. And if you're not even profitable enough to pay your writers, you definitely shouldn't be whining about some sim subs that got snatched up.
"profitable enough"
go home, honey. mommy has dinner ready
It's not unprecedented. Maybe only allow simultaneous submissions from paypal e-mail addresses that you recognize. Maybe that would sell more copies of the books. BASMUTO.
Thank you everybody for weighing in. This has been good to read. Usually when I say stuff of an extreme nature, I'm just hoping to get put in my place a little bit.
Mark Baumer maybe has had the best idea yet: change the rejection process to just saying, "uh-oh."
If I thought that it would keep people from sim-subbing, I'd certainly say that they're not accepted. But I feel like then people would keep sim-subbing and then they'd be afraid to tell me when their stuff was accepted elsewhere.
A blacklist seems like a good idea.
Journals that don't respond are definitely hack.
Writers that sim-sub when asked not to are definitely hack.
It'll be fun to change the submissions to invite-only.
Post a Comment