What’s the benefit of literary journals not accepting
reprints? And where is the logic behind it?
As writer and manuscript assessor, Roslyn Ross, said to me the other day, "That's like saying you can't win a cookery competition if you have cooked a dish for someone in the past and they have eaten it.”
As writer and manuscript assessor, Roslyn Ross, said to me the other day, "That's like saying you can't win a cookery competition if you have cooked a dish for someone in the past and they have eaten it.”
As the co-publishing editor of Vine Leaves Literary
Journal, where we do allow reprints, I do not understand the reasoning behind
such a restriction either. A writer’s work is a writer’s work. And when it's published by another journal, it does not become the journal’s property (unless you sign your rights over in a contract). So why
should the fact that a piece of work appeared on an author’s blog in the past,
or another literary journal, or even in a self-published book, deem it ineligible for submission to someone else?
Surely it being available to read at a variety of sources is better
for both the author and the literary journal regarding online discoverability and visibility.
I respect the choices other editors make. And it's not my place to tell them how they should run their journals. But because I can't find any logical explanation for not permitting reprints, I can't help but wonder whether such restrictions are put in place out of greed. I suppose some editors might feel if a piece of work
hasn't ever been published before, they will be the first venue people come to
read it, and therefore garner their journal the most attention and recognition. But isn't that a little hypocritical? Doesn't that defeat the real purpose of literary journals? For writers (not editors) to receive more recognition for their work? That's my knee-jerk response
to this. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
When I got talking to Roslyn Ross on Facebook the other day (the
conversation which spurred this post), and I told her why I believed reprints weren’t permitted in journals and magazines, she said, “Makes sense. There is
always a reason, although my understanding of 'spiders' in terms of Internet
search engines is that in fact, if the work had been read by some, then the
site which reprinted it would be more readily accessible through any search
containing any of the words involved.”
I think she’s right. Could it be that literary magazine
editors aren’t aware of this? And if not, could not permitting reprints actually be achieving the complete opposite of what they intend to achieve?
And what about not allowing simultaneous submissions (submitting the same piece of work to multiple journals at the same time)? This, I find, is rarer nowadays, but there are still a few out there who expect exclusivity.
Roslyn Ross pointed out that it does seem rather “counter-intuitive and counter-productive” to prohibit simultaneous submissions because it demands that someone write a piece of work that they will only submit to one publication. And then the author’s hands are tied. They cannot use it for months, or however long it takes for the journal to respond to the submission. Some of the "greats" can take up to a year to respond to a submission. Do we really have the right to expect an author to sit on their hands for this long? As a writer and an editor, I don’t think it’s ethical.
Perhaps some editors think that their time will be wasted if they choose a piece of work that is also accepted elsewhere. But you know what? If they accepted reprints, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?
Roslyn Ross pointed out that it does seem rather “counter-intuitive and counter-productive” to prohibit simultaneous submissions because it demands that someone write a piece of work that they will only submit to one publication. And then the author’s hands are tied. They cannot use it for months, or however long it takes for the journal to respond to the submission. Some of the "greats" can take up to a year to respond to a submission. Do we really have the right to expect an author to sit on their hands for this long? As a writer and an editor, I don’t think it’s ethical.
Perhaps some editors think that their time will be wasted if they choose a piece of work that is also accepted elsewhere. But you know what? If they accepted reprints, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?
The big guns like The New Yorker and Tin House
can easily get away with expecting such strict submission rules to be followed. They are
prestigious journals, and such strict rules would prevent those less-than-serious writers from submitting a piece of work they didn't believe in. It's quality control, and I understand that. But for all the smaller
magazines? I’m sorry, but I find these limitations completely unacceptable.
We should be encouraging writers of all stripes. Even if they are simply testing the waters or trying to get a bit more exposure. That's what we "smaller" journals are here for. We're another step up the ladder toward a writer's success.
Writing is hard work.
Let's not add to that by making it hard to read.
We should be encouraging writers of all stripes. Even if they are simply testing the waters or trying to get a bit more exposure. That's what we "smaller" journals are here for. We're another step up the ladder toward a writer's success.
Writing is hard work.
Let's not add to that by making it hard to read.
Why do you think some literary journals have these sorts of submission
rules in place? And do you agree with them?
________________________
________________________
CLICK HERE to subscribe to my newsletter. Every subscriber will receive The Hum of Sin Against Skin for free, and be the first to know about new releases and special subscriber giveaways.
