bsolah said:
I've seen a few markets (both print and electronic) say they won't send rejections. Personally, I find this rude, lazy and unprofessional so I won't submit to places like that.
There's nothing rude, lazy, or unprofessional about it. It saves time and money for magazines and for writers. Most magazines do respond to a #10 SASE, but all this does is cost you a stamp and give you one more rejection slip.
The only reason all magazines used to respond is because writers needed their manuscripts returned so they could send them elsewhere. New manuscripts had to be typed, and this was costly and time-consuming. Rejection slips naturally came along with the manuscripts, so this became a habit.
But today no writer in his right mind keeps sending out the same manuscript. It's much easier and cheaper to just print out a fresh, clean copy. And since manuscripts no longer need be returned, there's little sense in paying people to send out little slips of paper that all say essentially the same thing, which is "Hell, no, we don't want your story."
If you make it a habit of not submitting to magazines that don't respond, all you're doing is making it easier for writers who do. And in three or four more years, you probably won't be sending manuscripts anywhere.
Just submit, and if you don't hear within two months, move on. It's really very painless. And much cheaper.
The simple truth is that magazines owe you nothing, including a response. Especially to something they don't want or need. Most magazines accept submissions, but no magazine asks for them from any individual writer. And those who say this is a lazy practice have no clue at all about what goes on inside an editorial office, or how things really work.
Complaining that a magazine doesn't respond is really just another way of saying you didn't send them something they wanted, needed, or liked.
