Will email put an end to the rejection letter?

[blackbird]

I have noticed lately that more and more literary journals are now accepting online submissions. I have also noticed that, with most of these journals now accepting online submissions, the writer is no longer notified in the event of rejection. Instead, the editors will simply choose to not respond at all, assuming, I suppose, that once the stated turnaround time has passed and the writer has heard nothing, they will assume that "no news is bad news."

The good thing about the old standard SASE submission practice was that at least you were guranteed to hear something back, even if not always the answer you wanted. This new practice of no response at all--just let the writer figure it out--seems highly impersonal and cold to me, though I suppose that is the way most things are moving today.

I realize I'm probably making a bigger deal out of this than is warranted. After all, a rejection is a rejection is a rejection, no matter how you slice it. But at least when you sent your SASE, you could always hope for a personal note, a bit of critical feedback, something to let you know that yes, an actual human being did read the piece. Now I'm perfectly aware that real human beings are reading the online submissions, as well. But I wonder if one of the added "conveniences" of this method is that editors no longer have to deal with taking the time to say "no"--they can simply concentrate on what they want to say "yes" to.

[Siddow]

I don't know if I agree with what you're saying about non-response. I recently got a three paragraph personal rejection by email. Sending a SASE doesn't guarantee a response. I'm still waiting for several that I sent out over a year ago.

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, many snail mail magazines no longer respond, either. It's a growing trend. SASE or not, they only respond if they want the story. But, really, I don't think e-mail submissions have a much lower response rate than snail mail SASE.

[stephblake24]

I have thought about this a lot. We authors want INSTANT gratification. I want to let someone look at something and hear the YES OR NO.

Is NO NEWS necessarily good news?

I have lost a lot of sleep lately. I go to the mailbox each afternoon hoping to see SOMETHING in the mailbox. I check my email a million times a day. I look at publishing house websites for clues. I read Miss Snark and this forum (instead of write).

And finally, today there was request for a partial in the mail, but there was a rejection letter under it.

I was ELATED with the request for a partial, upset with the rejection, but then I had an email rejection on something else and tried not to feel totally deflated.

It is possible that I have too many irons in the fire.

I think we are all impatient.

(Nah!)

[gromhard]

So what do you do? I try to be cool and if I submit a story to a magazine then I won't submit it anywhere else until I get my rejection note.
I have a pretty big body of work 30-40shorts so it used to not be that big a problem to wait for a response. But not they're not even sending responses and sometimes the press even goes out of business without telling anyone. But what if I sent the same short to two different magazines and they (unlikely as it may be) both wanted to publish the story? Then do I have to write a "Oh I'm sorry but the other guy beat you to it." Letter?
And if it IS okay to send the same story to different places then why hold back at all? Why not constantly send like 5 or 6 copies of each story to different magazines every month?

-Gromhard

[stormie]

For some reason, I feel email rejections have less sting. An envelope pops up in the tray, you click on it and read. Then click and it's deleted. A few seconds of sorrow and then on to the next submission.

With an SASE, you hold the envelope, your hand trembles (just a little, mind you) your thumbnail slices across the top, you pull out the letter/postcard/scrap of paper torn from a copybook (I really did receive that once), read, sigh, then spend a few seconds shredding that thing up--envelope included--and walk it over to the trash can. All the while, your eyes have enough time to well up, so over to the tissue box you go, now wiping the streaming tears away, take a deep breath, then start smashing the keyboard.

Too much time, money, and grief, involved in the second scenerio. And, no, there are many, many of my darling SASEs floating around in mailrooms or used as paper airplanes, never to be returned to me, its rightful owner.

And yeah, I've received rejections by email, sometimes with suggestions.

Can you tell I like email far better? :D

[Mike Coombes]

I've only come across one mag that took e-subs that didn't send a rejection, and it was stated in their sub guidelines that if I hadn't heard back within x amount of time, it was to be considered rejected. Everyone else... well, how hard is it to send an email? A response is just good manners.

At GUD Magazine the whole system is automated - if we reject something, a form rejection letter is generated, with the option for the rejecting editor to comment if they feel so inclined.

[maestrowork]

Most literary mags I know do respond with an email.

Check your junk mail folder, though.

[Jamesaritchie]

Most literary mags I know do respond with an email.

Check your junk mail folder, though.

They usually do if they accept e-mail submissions. I've never had a literary mag that accepts e-mails submissions not respond via e-mail, whether it's an acceptance or a rejection.

[Kate Thornton]

I've never had *any* online venue fail to send either an acceptance or a rejection - except the times my submission was lost - make sure your story actually arrived!

[writeperch]

I've always gotten a response of one kind or another whether it's email or snail mail. If it's been a long time, I send a follow-up letter to see if they've received my submission.

Gromhard: You should still only send your stories to one place at a time, despite their (sometimes terrible) timelag in responding. If it's been a long time (6+ months perhaps, you decide what's exorbitent) either send that magazine a query asking if they received your story and is it still under consideration or send that magazine a letter withdrawing your story for consideration and send your story somewhere else.

[Jamesaritchie]

So what do you do? I try to be cool and if I submit a story to a magazine then I won't submit it anywhere else until I get my rejection note.
I have a pretty big body of work 30-40shorts so it used to not be that big a problem to wait for a response. But not they're not even sending responses and sometimes the press even goes out of business without telling anyone. But what if I sent the same short to two different magazines and they (unlikely as it may be) both wanted to publish the story? Then do I have to write a "Oh I'm sorry but the other guy beat you to it." Letter?
And if it IS okay to send the same story to different places then why hold back at all? Why not constantly send like 5 or 6 copies of each story to different magazines every month?

-Gromhard

It isn't okay to send the same story to different magazines at the same time unless all magazines agree to allow it. Talk about something that can cause editors to simply toss or delete stories, rather than replying, this is it. If they figure out what you're doing, you're shooting yourself between the eyes for no good reason.

[MicheleLee]

Of my 14 rejects this year ONE was a no response. Two were SASE. The rest were all email. The one no response was because the editors had a fight and the fiction editor left, not leaving his password so there was no way for the other editor to reject anyone. I'm not sure that counts as a reject at all.
BTW, no response is considered unprofessional and in my main genre, there is a big movement to not submit to places who can't hit reply and type "no". The first step some less than reputable places do to avoid paying people is stop answering email. So for that reason if a market says they only answer when interested I don't submit to them. Period. Ever.

[Jamesaritchie]

So for that reason if a market says they only answer when interested I don't submit to them. Period. Ever.

I'm afraid you'll have to change this notion, or lose a lot of potential markets. "No response" is becoming more and more common, even at some of the best magazines. Some of the top, most reputable magazines out there respond only if interested, and tehre's nothing unprofessional about this.

Not submitting to them just means you're taking yourself out of the competition. It may make you feel better, but I guarantee it's going to make other writers who still submit to these magazines much happier than it makes you.

And there's really nothing unprofessional about no response, as long as the magazine states this is the case, and places a time limit on when you should move on. It often isn't quite as easy as hitting reply and typing "No thank."

Try to force magazines to respond and all that will happen is that editors will start hitting reply and typing "No" without even reading most of the stories.

Agents and editors are not required to respond. Doing so is merely a courtesy, and the difference between a rejection and a no response is trivial. If the magazine states up front that they won't respond unless interested, then just move on. I can't for the life of me understand why this upsets some writers.

As for magazines that refuse to pay, this has nothing to do with responding or not responding. If a place is less than reputable, sending responses isn't going to make them one bit more reputable.

[Pnin]

But what if I sent the same short to two different magazines and they (unlikely as it may be) both wanted to publish the story? Then do I have to write a "Oh I'm sorry but the other guy beat you to it." Letter?
And if it IS okay to send the same story to different places then why hold back at all? Why not constantly send like 5 or 6 copies of each story to different magazines every month?

-Gromhard

Gromhard, as James says, you need to read the submission guidelines for whatever journal you're submitting to. It seems from your other posts like you write "literary fiction," (correct me if I'm wrong) which means you most likely target (mostly) university-based literary journals. Missouri Review, Zoetrope, Ploughshares, etc. A good percentage of these accept, and even encourage, simultaneous submissions.

[blackbird]

"It isn't okay to send the same story to different magazines at the same time unless all magazines agree to allow it. Talk about something that can cause editors to simply toss or delete stories, rather than replying, this is it. If they figure out what you're doing, you're shooting yourself between the eyes for no good reason.[/quote]

That's the key word, though. "Allow." I happen to know one particular writer who is one of the most prolific, hard-working, and frequently published up-and-coming writers in the business. Lately, it's like he has exploded--his work is everywhere! Well, he certainly did not achieve this by submitting to one journal at a time, then sitting on his hands for months waiting for a response. He is not only a tireless self-promotor, but a tireless submitter as well. And one of his "secrets," as he revealed in a recent interview, is that he never even considers journals that don't accept simultaneous submissions. But he doesn't just blindly "bombard" publications, either. He does his homework and knows which stories are right for which journals. But once he has targeted a handful, you betcha he's going to shoot it out to each and every one.

I have heard him say that, every once in a while, if he feels that a particular story and a particular journal are the perfect match, he will submit the story only to that journal. But for him this would be a rare case. As a rule, simultaneous submissions are what has enabled him to achieve such a list respectable credentials in such a short time. Otherwise, it would have taken years.

[stormie]

BTW, no response is considered unprofessional and in my main genre, there is a big movement to not submit to places who can't hit reply and type "no". The first step some less than reputable places do to avoid paying people is stop answering email. So for that reason if a market says they only answer when interested I don't submit to them. Period. Ever.

If I did that, I wouldn't have had as many acceptances. I doubt not submitting to places that don't reply if it's a rejection, will make editors and agents sit up and take notice. They're too busy.

[Jamesaritchie]

"It isn't okay to send the same story to different magazines at the same time unless all magazines agree to allow it. Talk about something that can cause editors to simply toss or delete stories, rather than replying, this is it. If they figure out what you're doing, you're shooting yourself between the eyes for no good reason.
That's the key word, though. "Allow." I happen to know one particular writer who is one of the most prolific, hard-working, and frequently published up-and-coming writers in the business. Lately, it's like he has exploded--his work is everywhere! Well, he certainly did not achieve this by submitting to one journal at a time, then sitting on his hands for months waiting for a response. He is not only a tireless self-promotor, but a tireless submitter as well. And one of his "secrets," as he revealed in a recent interview, is that he never even considers journals that don't accept simultaneous submissions. But he doesn't just blindly "bombard" publications, either. He does his homework and knows which stories are right for which journals. But once he has targeted a handful, you betcha he's going to shoot it out to each and every one.

I have heard him say that, every once in a while, if he feels that a particular story and a particular journal are the perfect match, he will submit the story only to that journal. But for him this would be a rare case. As a rule, simultaneous submissions are what has enabled him to achieve such a list respectable credentials in such a short time. Otherwise, it would have taken years.[/quote]

If he really is hard-working and prolific, he's never, ever sitting on his hands. He's always writing and submitting new fition, and something liklely goes out each and every week.

It does little harm to send simultaneous submissions, if all parties agree to it, but it's just a myth to think doing so speeds up the process of becoming a well-known writer.

It doesn't take one day longer to have stories published all over the place without simultaneous submissions, and simultaneous submissions, in fact, greatly slow down the process for most writers.

[pdr]

Here we go again!

Right:
RULE 1: Follow the magazine/journal guidelines. If it says NO sim subs then DON'T.

RULE 2: You can submit the same story to different countries.
There is another, large world beyond the US with outstanding literary traditions and some prestigious magazines and journals. Most of their editors only want 1st Name of Country Serial Rights. Follow their guidelines.

Okay?

[MicheleLee]

I'm not refusing to sub to those places because I think the editors will take notice and stop, I mean, how can they take notice if I'm not submitting right? I can be a professional and a success while upholding some sort of morals. For the record I'm a genre writer not a literary writer and only two places I've seen that don't answer queries both accept equeries. At that point it is completely unprofessional for an editor to equate everything they aren't interested in with spam and simply deleting it. A click-No-click is not too much for a writer to ask and no, editors are not above responding to professional correspondance. If you went into a fast food place and gave them your money and they said "Well, we might give you your food, if we want to." You'd be furious too. I can guarentee even if they aren't interested in Something by an already well established writer they give them the benefit of saying no. For me, there are plenty of place that will respond to patronize, to submit to and to spend my money on, and a place that treats writers like poo won't get my money either.