In message 000601c08578$d6e55f60$f28c49d5@marian-de-haan.multiweb.nl, Marian de Haan maya@multiweb.nl writes
Julia, I can understand this kind of thing happening and my question wasn't meant as an attack on you or other hard working, human editors. My gripe is with those editors who systematically refuse to respond. It is extremely frustrating to be unable to get a reply, especially as it prevents the writer from submitting the work elsewhere.
Unfortunately, a lot of what's been written in this thread (which did include other people) gave the impression that it is an editor's duty to *accept* (or reject) immediately, not merely acknowledge receipt.
Even as far as acknowledging receipt goes - editing is something that for most people has to be fitted in around other commitments, and it may take a while before someone gets around to reading their email. I have the advantage of my own host, and therefore an address set aside specifically for handling queries about submissions, but not all editors have that luxury.
I know how frustrating it is to not get a reply, especially when this keeps happening. However, as Tavia has already pointed out, you are *not* obliged to leave the piece with an editor until that editor responds. You can formally withdraw it, and send it elsewhere. I personally would send the notice of withdrawal on a piece that had been submitted electronically to the same email address as I sent the submission, with no paper follow-up, but I tend to the bloody-minded.
Another form of defence, although one that a beginning author is not likely to think of, is to send a querying email first, and not send the submission until there's a response to that query. It may be bloody irritating to the editor, but if she's getting a lot of this it might give her a hint that she needs to improve her response times:-) I've also done this when I happen to know that the editor might be having Real Life problems, as it gives her (or him) the chance to say "Not right now please, but in a couple of months' time".
Should you feel the urge to try the other side of the game, the language problem need not be a problem. After all, the Americans manage to produce zines, and they don't speak British English either <grins, ducks and runs>. There are people willing to help (I know, I used them, I don't speak standard British English but a weird amalgam of various dialects).
Julia Jones wrote:
In message 000601c08578$d6e55f60$f28c49d5@marian-de-haan.multiweb.nl, Marian de Haan maya@multiweb.nl writes
Julia, I can understand this kind of thing happening and my question wasn't meant as an attack on you or other hard working, human editors. My gripe is with those editors who systematically refuse to respond. It is extremely frustrating to be unable to get a reply, especially as it prevents the writer from submitting the work elsewhere.
Unfortunately, a lot of what's been written in this thread (which did include other people) gave the impression that it is an editor's duty to *accept* (or reject) immediately, not merely acknowledge receipt.
I'm a bit baffled here. I've gone back and read the entire thread twice, and can't find any intimation of such a thing by anyone; I know I didn't say it. Yet given the comment in your previous post about a 'No, thanks' e-mail, I can only conclude this is directed at me.
Nowhere have I suggested limits on the time an editor takes to make a decision about a piece. Only that if a decision isn't going to be made fairly quickly, there should be an acknowledgement of receipt, and that _if_ the decision to reject has been made, the writer should be told so that he can attempt to place it elsewhere. (As a standard procedure; obviously the occasional emergency will cause delays.) What I am objecting to is the 'pocket veto', where an editor decides he doesn't want something and doesn't bother to tell the author. The acknowledgement of receipt just helps the author to know this isn't what's happening, and that it arrived at all.
Nor did I intend to insult you or any other well-intentioned editor; I have no reason to do so. The only fanzine editor I've dealt with is Kathryn Andersen, and she's been responsive and helpful in the extreme.
No, I haven't published a fanzine. OTOH, I have edited a newsletter with an all-volunteer staff, and run numerous volunteer entertainments, and one thing is a constant: volunteers who consider themselves ill-used quickly stop volunteering (this would apply to both writers and editors). It isn't whether they're _actually_ ill-used, but how they perceive it that counts. 'Thank you' is generally all it takes; Sarkoff had a point about courtesy.
Mistral
-
Julia Jones -
Mistral