Charlottesville Words

The editors talk back at kellyspitzer.com. The executive summary:

• Editors don’t get any joy out of rejecting stories.
• They’d personalize the process if they could.
• A tiny percentage of authors are so exasperating and rude that they turn editors off providing any feedback at all.
• If your story was close, they’ll say so. If it’s right for their journal, they’ll offer feedback and work with you. Otherwise, what’s the point of putting a lot of energy into a critique?

I liked this comment from Steven McDermott:

Steven J. McDermott is the editor of Storyglossia. His short fiction has appeared in numerous literary journals and in his collection of stories Winter of Different Directions.

My policy with Storyglossia is to always provide a reason why I reject a story. Sometimes the reason is simply a matter of taste and if that’s the only reason I’ll say so. Just because a story is well-written it isn’t a given that I’ll like it. Lots of journals out there and that means there’s plenty of editorial taste to go around. On the other hand, if the beginning is slow, the ending weak, or the writer has a fondness for “it” instead of precise nouns, or if any of the other possible ways that a story can lose my interest is present, I’ll say that, too. If something really impressed me even as I reject the story, I’ll pass that along also. Usually I’ll only respond with a couple of lines of feedback, but occasionally I’ll provide more extensive feedback, or even offer to work with a writer on a revision. Editors who claim that time constraints prohibit such a response are slinging BS. If an editor has time to read a story they have time to provide at least a one-sentence reason for rejecting. I can understand not wanting to write such responses, but saying you don’t have time? Not buying that excuse.

(Via Perpetual Folly)