STORYGLOSSIA Open for New Submissions
STORYGLOSSIA has re-opened to submissions with new guidelines. Reading during July and August for the September issue. Submission deadline is August 31st.
After much consideration I have decided to no longer provide feedback when rejecting stories (although there will surely will be some rare exceptions). Simply put, there are only two reasons a story gets rejected: either it wasn't to my taste or it wasn't as strong as the other submissions it was competing against. It's really that simple. A no is a no. Does it really matter why?
Comments?
After much consideration I have decided to no longer provide feedback when rejecting stories (although there will surely will be some rare exceptions). Simply put, there are only two reasons a story gets rejected: either it wasn't to my taste or it wasn't as strong as the other submissions it was competing against. It's really that simple. A no is a no. Does it really matter why?
Comments?
posted by Steven J. McDermott at
9:41 AM
3 Comments:
You the boss, homes. Makes sense to me. And I like the fact that you're including crime/noir now, if only from a selfish perspective. Speaking of which, you going to record a story for CrimeWAV.com for me?
Some magazines don't even send rejection notes anymore. If I don't get a response or even an acknowledgment after 3 or 4 months sometimes I feel like I've sent my work into outer space, maybe to some place that is light years away and that feels a little weird so I like to hear at least a "Thanks but no thanks," but I don't need an explanation. I should be working hard enough to have lots of submissions out there. What do a few rejections matter? Not much, if I'm submitting lots of pieces. It's doing the work that matters the most anyway. I do like getting feedback, but I wouldn't want to be the one who has to give it all the time. I have published a few stories that were so improved by an editor's suggestions, even tiny suggestions, (Kathy Fish comes to mind) that I feel I should have given the editor credit as co-author.
I have an etiquette question: If an editor takes the time to give the writer excellent, specific suggestions for revision but doesn't ask to see the story after the revisions, should the writer assume the magazine isn't interested in seeing the piece again?
Thanks for the comment Dianne. Can't speak for other editors so I'll just give you my take. If I want to see the revision I'll ask for it when I provide feedback. Most of the time that's when a story is close but has a problem with the beginning or ending and I'll indicate that I'm likely to accept the piece with changes. Other times I'll make some suggestions and say I'd like to see it if the author chooses to revise.
Personally I'm not opposed to seeing a revision even if i didn't ask for it. I mean, why not?
Most journals don't want to see revisions, but the thing to keep in mind, particularly with journals supported by universities, is that they often change editors and staff each year. So the people that rejected your story last year may not even be there this year.
Non-university supported journals are a bit different because their staff tends to be the same year after year. Probably best to query them before resubmitting a revision.
The thing about getting feedback is that it's just one editor's .02. There are a couple of thousand literary journals out there so one editor's opinion is just that, and certainly--or at least not necessarily--indicative of an objective reading of the story. Always better to get feedback from a reader whose opinion you trust than from a slush pile reader. Although if you are getting feedback from Kathy Fish that's feedback you might want to pay attention to.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home