Wise words.Though writing is personal, putting it in the world needn't be. Mark, you are patient and kind. I never take rejection personally. But, I am afraid if I were an editor, I would be taking names of the snarky responders.
Excellent points, Mark. Given the huge number of submissions magazines receive, it's not easy to find one that says, "Yes." Writers need to be professional about the whole process and develop a good sense of the magazines that would reasonably favor their work. That said, writers who are published with some consistency know that friendly editors do not always respond positively to their submissions. That's just part of the process. If there is an up-side to these rejections, it may mean that the writer is taking a new direction in their work. If that's the case, the writer may be still working out the kinks, or the editor just needs to see more to appreciate where that writer is headed. In either case, sending out another submission to that editor is a good idea. Assuming simultaneous submissions, there really isn't anything to lose.
A good case for sim subs. Part of the get back on the horse concept.
I used to have a strong rule with myself about making sure to submit more work as soon as I received a rejection. I think it's a good practice. Maybe that batch needs more attention after a few rejections but find something to have out under consideration.
Maybe like a metaphor for juggling -- there should always be balls in the air. In turn, always subs that are out for consideration.
100% For psychological health if for nothing else, every time a rejection comes in, a submission has to go out. At certain times of the year, this is difficult, but still....
It’s worthwhile for me to keep in mind that when I get rejected, I’ve just been competing against people who are sending out massive numbers of multiple submissions, many of them to journals they have never even read. I do try to target submissions to journals I read, editors I respect and know a little bit about. And if I like a journal and think I’m a reasonably good fit, I do keep trying over and over. I think it gives the editors a chance to see my work over time, and me a chance to continually hone the work better, trying for those “favorite” journals.
I think it's good advice. If you really love the magazine keep submitting if your work is right for it. Sometimes the magazine can seem confusing because what is published does have a particular style but open variations. However, I agree, give yourself time to grow as a writer. And don't take it personally. The editor is not rejecting you out of spite. It just wasn't the right fit.
Absolutely -- take time to grow as a writer. We all want to rush this but that's not how it works... and we wouldn't really want it if it did... the joy comes from the shifting of self of life of culture over time. Duration plays such an important role in process.
I've been fiddling around with writing very short poems (under 50 words) and sending them out to one particular journal. I've been rejected from the journal at least 4 or 5 times. I kept fooling with the form and the words, paying attention to making each word count. This week one of my pieces will be published in the journal. I'm glad I didn't give up and I learned so much while doing it. It actually makes me sad to read that someone would stop trying after only one rejection.
This is all sound advice. There is a balance of traits to submitting work: perseverance mixed with humility mixed with honesty with oneself. Don’t submit work to journals that don’t publish the kind of work one writes. It’s good to both send work to a wide range of journals, but also to have a sound base of journals you send to consistently and whose editors you know.
I think perseverance is very important, especially with journals that you know your work is good for but they just happen to be hard to get in. I had that with several journals, the first 3 or 4 or even 5 submissions were all rejected. But after the first acceptance, they became a regular venue where my work was accepted.
I appreciate your point here about how a lit mag can go from a tough sell to regular rotation once you unlock the work that hits home with the editor(s).
+1 to all of this. The only times I've submitted and vowed never again (silently) have involved extremely overdue responses or questionable feedback.
As a dedicated member of team targeted submissions, however, I feel that, from a narrowly tactical point of view, it's not a good strategy: On one hand, Submittable makes it easy to spray, and there don't seem to be any real downsides other than keeping good records and managing one's emotions. (Maybe some editors would punish a history of poorly targeted submissions, but then they're not putting out the best work they can, and they have to remember in the first place.)
On the other hand, it can be hard to figure out what markets want. Sometimes this is actually what they say they want. Frequently it's not: POETRY, for example, says they want avant-garde work, but in my view, most of what they publish doesn't really answer to that description. Most often, a market will have either no statement or a statement that doesn't really distinguish it. OK, OK, I should read an issue (and if I can for free, I do), but I could have had a submission in by now.
But David, what about Duotrope and Chill Subs? I subscribe to both and consider myself a power user. With the right search, I can do things like find markets that might want my haibun or find markets that publish speculative poetry, but most of the time, I end up setting the parameters to filter out markets unlikely to meet my standards and just read.
I am eagerly awaiting the day Submitit launches for poetry.
There's a post I've been holding onto about the editor perspective of knowing that someone is clearly not sending your their "A" material. Editors see what you're publishing elsewhere (or at least some will) and they can also tell that if you've been in say Pleiades and North American Review but send pretty lousy work, then you're not sending your best. Another aspect is, for me, that I believe writers are competing with themselves. So, once I've accepted pretty good work from a writer for publication in ONE ART, I want them to challenge their own baseline ability.
One more thing: I know well as an editor how labor-intensive responding personally to everyone would be, but there are other ways to give more than a yes or no (useful for targeting). Warm declines, obviously, which can frustrating to parse without Rejection Wiki (and Mark, I remember your feelings about RW). THRUSH used tell authors which poem came closest, which I loved.
I **did** like that THRUSH policy though I also found it confounding tbh. The ones that were most liked seemed to strike me as different almost every time ... and the editorial tastes at THRUSH seemed particularly difficult to pin down. Just me?
My impression was that they really, really loved their pastoral. Not really what I do, so I only subbed them once. I saw a few packets sent by friends and agreed with the editorial take.
Notable about Submitit. That will be interesting. It seems they've come up with a secret sauce algorithm to help slightly beat the odds... but my sense is there are more organic approaches that can accomplish this... basically crowdsourcing... seeing where other people who publish where you publish (and write somewhat "comp" material) or the classic move of looking in the Acknowledgments section of collections to see where the poems first appeared.
I will say that the "comps" for ONE ART on Duotrope and Chill Subs both strike me as somewhat bizarre. My sense is that this is because the data is skewed by those who report... and those journals that receive the most subs.
Wise words.Though writing is personal, putting it in the world needn't be. Mark, you are patient and kind. I never take rejection personally. But, I am afraid if I were an editor, I would be taking names of the snarky responders.
Excellent points, Mark. Given the huge number of submissions magazines receive, it's not easy to find one that says, "Yes." Writers need to be professional about the whole process and develop a good sense of the magazines that would reasonably favor their work. That said, writers who are published with some consistency know that friendly editors do not always respond positively to their submissions. That's just part of the process. If there is an up-side to these rejections, it may mean that the writer is taking a new direction in their work. If that's the case, the writer may be still working out the kinks, or the editor just needs to see more to appreciate where that writer is headed. In either case, sending out another submission to that editor is a good idea. Assuming simultaneous submissions, there really isn't anything to lose.
A good case for sim subs. Part of the get back on the horse concept.
I used to have a strong rule with myself about making sure to submit more work as soon as I received a rejection. I think it's a good practice. Maybe that batch needs more attention after a few rejections but find something to have out under consideration.
Maybe like a metaphor for juggling -- there should always be balls in the air. In turn, always subs that are out for consideration.
100% For psychological health if for nothing else, every time a rejection comes in, a submission has to go out. At certain times of the year, this is difficult, but still....
It’s worthwhile for me to keep in mind that when I get rejected, I’ve just been competing against people who are sending out massive numbers of multiple submissions, many of them to journals they have never even read. I do try to target submissions to journals I read, editors I respect and know a little bit about. And if I like a journal and think I’m a reasonably good fit, I do keep trying over and over. I think it gives the editors a chance to see my work over time, and me a chance to continually hone the work better, trying for those “favorite” journals.
I think it's good advice. If you really love the magazine keep submitting if your work is right for it. Sometimes the magazine can seem confusing because what is published does have a particular style but open variations. However, I agree, give yourself time to grow as a writer. And don't take it personally. The editor is not rejecting you out of spite. It just wasn't the right fit.
Absolutely -- take time to grow as a writer. We all want to rush this but that's not how it works... and we wouldn't really want it if it did... the joy comes from the shifting of self of life of culture over time. Duration plays such an important role in process.
I've been fiddling around with writing very short poems (under 50 words) and sending them out to one particular journal. I've been rejected from the journal at least 4 or 5 times. I kept fooling with the form and the words, paying attention to making each word count. This week one of my pieces will be published in the journal. I'm glad I didn't give up and I learned so much while doing it. It actually makes me sad to read that someone would stop trying after only one rejection.
Same page. Makes me sad, too.
This is all sound advice. There is a balance of traits to submitting work: perseverance mixed with humility mixed with honesty with oneself. Don’t submit work to journals that don’t publish the kind of work one writes. It’s good to both send work to a wide range of journals, but also to have a sound base of journals you send to consistently and whose editors you know.
I think perseverance is very important, especially with journals that you know your work is good for but they just happen to be hard to get in. I had that with several journals, the first 3 or 4 or even 5 submissions were all rejected. But after the first acceptance, they became a regular venue where my work was accepted.
I appreciate your point here about how a lit mag can go from a tough sell to regular rotation once you unlock the work that hits home with the editor(s).
+1 to all of this. The only times I've submitted and vowed never again (silently) have involved extremely overdue responses or questionable feedback.
As a dedicated member of team targeted submissions, however, I feel that, from a narrowly tactical point of view, it's not a good strategy: On one hand, Submittable makes it easy to spray, and there don't seem to be any real downsides other than keeping good records and managing one's emotions. (Maybe some editors would punish a history of poorly targeted submissions, but then they're not putting out the best work they can, and they have to remember in the first place.)
On the other hand, it can be hard to figure out what markets want. Sometimes this is actually what they say they want. Frequently it's not: POETRY, for example, says they want avant-garde work, but in my view, most of what they publish doesn't really answer to that description. Most often, a market will have either no statement or a statement that doesn't really distinguish it. OK, OK, I should read an issue (and if I can for free, I do), but I could have had a submission in by now.
But David, what about Duotrope and Chill Subs? I subscribe to both and consider myself a power user. With the right search, I can do things like find markets that might want my haibun or find markets that publish speculative poetry, but most of the time, I end up setting the parameters to filter out markets unlikely to meet my standards and just read.
I am eagerly awaiting the day Submitit launches for poetry.
There's a post I've been holding onto about the editor perspective of knowing that someone is clearly not sending your their "A" material. Editors see what you're publishing elsewhere (or at least some will) and they can also tell that if you've been in say Pleiades and North American Review but send pretty lousy work, then you're not sending your best. Another aspect is, for me, that I believe writers are competing with themselves. So, once I've accepted pretty good work from a writer for publication in ONE ART, I want them to challenge their own baseline ability.
One more thing: I know well as an editor how labor-intensive responding personally to everyone would be, but there are other ways to give more than a yes or no (useful for targeting). Warm declines, obviously, which can frustrating to parse without Rejection Wiki (and Mark, I remember your feelings about RW). THRUSH used tell authors which poem came closest, which I loved.
I **did** like that THRUSH policy though I also found it confounding tbh. The ones that were most liked seemed to strike me as different almost every time ... and the editorial tastes at THRUSH seemed particularly difficult to pin down. Just me?
My impression was that they really, really loved their pastoral. Not really what I do, so I only subbed them once. I saw a few packets sent by friends and agreed with the editorial take.
Hmm, they seemed to prefer work that was generally either more experimental or more lyric than most of what I offer
Notable about Submitit. That will be interesting. It seems they've come up with a secret sauce algorithm to help slightly beat the odds... but my sense is there are more organic approaches that can accomplish this... basically crowdsourcing... seeing where other people who publish where you publish (and write somewhat "comp" material) or the classic move of looking in the Acknowledgments section of collections to see where the poems first appeared.
I will say that the "comps" for ONE ART on Duotrope and Chill Subs both strike me as somewhat bizarre. My sense is that this is because the data is skewed by those who report... and those journals that receive the most subs.
Yeah, the comps are horrible. I am professionally adjacent to recommender systems, and I know they could do so, so much better :(