People often ask me about Missouri Review’s “personalized” rejections. Do we really mean it when we say that we’d like to see more of their work in the future?
The short answer is yes. Our numbers of submissions are high enough (somewhere around 15,000 a year) that we have no reason to ask for more submissions unless we see promise in a piece. Our percentage of early or first publications demonstrates that we really are looking for good new writing talent.
It’s kind of old-fashioned, but yes we read every submission with equal interest and we’re being straight with writers when we say please try us again.
1 response so far ↓
1
rtaylor
// Jan 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Is it possible to go from the specific to the general on this, and extrapolate Missouri Review’s attitude on this subject, into some attitude that is probably typical of all if not most literary magazines?
For example, Green Mountain Review is doing an issue on “catastrophe”, a subject I’m interested in and for which I had a piece I thought fit in. The form rejection letter contained no editorial signature, it demured politely but asked to see more work. Do they mean it?
Conjunctions magazine sent a hand written note commenting favorably on a piece and asked to see more work. Do they mean it?
The New Yorker sent a hand written note commenting favorably on a piece and asked to see more work. Do they mean it?
I’m going to say yes, in all three cases, even the form letter, on the same grounds Mr. Morgan cites, that all of these publications get enough material through normal channels without asking for additional work. I’m leaning toward letting MR’s view stand for a general attitude on the part the magazine publishers.
You must log in to post a comment.