Publishing : submission fees...

Outside of competitions, I don't believe it's common.

That said, these days nothing should surprise. There is no more 'industry standard.' Everyone is doing whatever makes sense to them, and I'd expect things to grow increasingly disparate over time.

"Money flows to the author" is the goal.

"Nobody wants to read your fucking story" is the rule.

If a press is asking for manuscript submissions and is charging $20 to submit, no, don't do it. If a press is willing to give you any sort of CRITIQUE for $20, that's actually a great deal. I charge anywhere from about $200-$1,200 to edit and critique. I rarely pay fees to submit a story. I've done it before, I think the Missouri Review charged $3 to submit or you could mail it, but I don't like paying. I paid $20 to enter a Tin House contest, with a big prize, but I got a subscription, so that was worth it.

Okay, I should rephrase.

Money flows to the author, rather than away from.

(Except for editing, critiques, etc., of course.)

Well, if it's a reviewer, like I said, things are different.

But here's the thing- if I'm sending to an editor and they don't get past my first page, I didn't grab them, I won't grab a potential reader either, so be it. If I get nothing but form letter rejections, I'll know that's what happened. I shouldn't be paying you to look at it and see if you like it, I should entice you into reading it and liking it.

A contest is ok, especially if you get a perk, like a subscription. Whoever above said that things are changing rapidly is right on. There are always exceptions to every rule. It just depends on the exact circumstances.

I believe that magazines should keep track of what percentage of acceptances came through their slushpile and disclose that number to submitters. Some magazines publish fewer than 5%, possibly even less than 1% of accepted pieces from the slushpile. The rest are all proffered or solicited. Nothing immoral about that, just docked it yo writers so they'll know before they submit. 

There's one particularly egregious magazine that I won't name that charges $20 for every submission and then publishes the vast majority of their stories from established writers who never went through the slushpile. I think that's morally wrong. 

Yes, and TOR is no longer taking unsolicited short stories under 17,500 words. They are looking for novellas, 30k to 40k, a little above or below is fine. 

Just FYI.

someone remind me to pirate that $225 book. not to read, just on principle. 

I read somewhere that when journals charge submission fees, they actually see the number of submissions go up---like there must be a perception that the fee might have 'turned away a less determined' writer or something, so folks think the odds might end up better in their favor.  But really, in my opion, worse than the fees is that most of the literary fiction journals seem to be part of some MFA prof, lit journal editor circle jerk. I mean, I pick up lit journals periodically for a buck or two at used book stores, and frankly some of what is published would get crucified if they workshopped it here. But then you go to the author info and it turns out they have an MFA from whatever and teach at whatever U. I looked at a copy of the newest missouri review---the story The Witch--it is pretty terrible, if you ever get a chance. It is set at college, and features a guy who wants to, gasp, be a writer! And he likes a girl, but she has a boyfriend, then his mom gets CANCER and then he stands outside of his childhood home. The home is, *snicker*, a FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT designed house and he thinks it looked like gingerbread. The only way I felt moved was to move the journal to the trash. The author teaches at BU. I get that anecdotes are not data, but if the sample size is big enough, it does become data.

A public space is hit or miss, which I think is fine. They publish a larger variety of styles. 

I worked on a Lit Journal during my undergrad. For me, it felt like there were always too many cooks in the kitchen. And everyone had a "valuable opinion." Yours truly included. I found stories that told a similar narrative--mother gets cancer, boyfriend cheated, kind of stuff--but the work was solid. They were good quality writing on known material. They still had a fresh feel. But, since they didn't want to do the known good stuff, we went with things that had zero plot or character progression, but were "cool" because they talked about sexting or Wittgenstein. 

And a Public Space is good. I dig a good portion of the stuff they produce. I also like American Short Fiction. It's more of an independent press rather than one with institutional ties. 

Likely not---it makes me want to pay submission fees less. If you pay and have more competition, that seems like a raw deal.

Getting stabbed by a dead baby! I think you should run with that Scriv.

@TheScrivener and @Thuggish, it was actually the editor for The Missouri Review who said that, after they instituted a submission fee, the number of submissions went up (so I'm not outing anybody). I think this is a fascinating study of psychology on how we human beings determine the monetary value of a thing. TMR can get away with it, well, because they're TMR. Maybe lesser known lit mags could, too, but I wouldnt want to test that theory with the pub I'm affiliated with. 

I believe in free markets, but I also believe that knowledge is power for consumers. If TMR derives whatever percentage of their published pieces from their slushpile and everybody knows that percentage before they pay and submit, then I'm okay with it. Caveat emptor. What I find distressing is that this is happening under the cover of darkness in a lot of places. Practically speaking, emerging or unknown writers have almost zero chance of getting published from the slushpile of top-end lit mags, not because those lit mags get so much unsolicited great writing, but because they almost never accept slushpile submissions no matter how great the writing. 

Meanwhile, many wonderful but lesser-known lit mags are struggling to stay alive, despite editorially wanting only to publish the very best work they can get their paws on. To stay around, any business has to operate at a surplus, not in the red. This is especially true for nonprofits who don't have wealthy owners/backers behind them. It's a tough, tough business, and unlike other industries, there isn't any single path to green. They must be good at all the core competencies of running day-to-day operations. I want to honor those pubs trying to do it the right way. 

The only way things will change is if we as writers demand they change, since we become business partners of lit mags when our work is accepted by them. You want me to pay a fee to submit? Then you'd better disclose what I'm really getting for my hard-earned money. 

I'll get down off my high horse now. 

I too find the psychology behind charging a fee boosting submission rates interesting... mostly out of self-interest with regard to the magazine I worked for that struggled for a few years and then eventually had to shut down for lack of submissions, and we didn't charge a submission fee. (though not to say we didn't have other problems as well, but that was an avenue we didn't even think of trying...)

And I agree that the whole principle of "money flows to the author" is too simplistic to be strictly adherent. Maybe as a generality to find help find things to be skeptical of, sure... If it "violates" this principle, then we do some research and see if it is worth it to us, fine.

But using it as a rubric to determine if publishers are "doing it wrong" ignores practical and historical facts about the industry that we claim to want to be a part of. Three things jump out at me: it pretends that publishing is a one-way relationship (which Jake points out is simply not true), it ignores the existence and role of agents (who should be much more concerned with the implications of this practice than writers), and if we make an exception for contests then the whole principle is self-defeating. What is the submission process if not a contest with other writers to get published? And similar arguments could be made for reviews and even copies.

@TheScrivener, we have blind submissions for that very reason. We want the best words.

Haha, I think you're on to something with what you saw on Duotrope.

Sometimes we're approached by somebody we know and occasionally we'll ask for a story, but that's not the norm. If it's the norm for a magazine to have 100% solicited or proffered work, cool. Then why have a slushpile at all? If it's the tiny exception to print something from the slushpile, there's a way to word that in the guidelines so that writers understand it's a "slim or none" proposition.

To address the lack of transparency in submissions, we've created an index which discloses how many of our acceptances came through our blind submissions process over the previous 12 months. We call it the PAS index (Pecentages of Acceptances from Slushpile). I'd love it if every publication adopted it. Once again, run your magazine the way you want, just disclose what you're doing for the people who are attempting to do business with you. 

Regarding your own writing, I hope your comments are humor or trying to be humble. No writer can survive without believing in their ability. We all write bad stories. All of us. But we have to know when we've written a pretty good one, too. I love Ray Bradbury's view on this subject. Write a story a week. It's impossible to write 52 bad stories in a row. 

To your last point, it really isn't all about the writing then, is it? This is a business attempting to monetize art. A gallery can't showcase every painter who shows them their work. They only put artists in their gallery and promote them if they think they can sell them to make a buck. It's the world we live in.

Some lit mag publishers have figured out they can sell copies to MFA students and writers trying to get published in that market. If we fail to have broad appeal, that's pretty much it, absent a couple competitors who want to see what you're doing and a maybe a few libraries. 

Well if the high horse is idle, I'll take it for another gallop.

For a basic case study I'd argue Glimmer Train vs One Story. Both established, respected magazines with different business models.

Glimmer Train holds a series of regular contests with comparatively high fees. One Story offers free submissions. I'm on both their mailing lists; GT sends regular contest updates, and OS sends regular "We need your support," NPR style requests, and appear to operate largely on donations with a list of donor-options.

There's a disturbing undercurrent of entitlement in refusing to support a structure, yet demanding that it support you. They need our stories to exist, but our stories are not HOW they exist. If you support OS and condemn GT, you're asking others to bear the cost so that you might reap a reward.

There is very much a benefactor system at work--large and small donors, grants, school funding--and many magazines' survival depends on it.

And people are not donating because they're dying to read another small-town grifter story. Many of these small magazines exist because people believe their existence benefits our society, our culture, and more grandly, our Democracy. (I will again tout Red Hen Press, because I think they were unjustly vilified, and a fine example of these very best hopes).

And the great irony of people against fees is that submitting has never been cheaper. If you never experienced submitting in the no-fee snail mail days, IT SUCKED! It cost money, AND was an incredible hassle and time suck. Never in the history of writing has it been easier. It's free. Off the top of my head: Mid-American, Ninth Letter, One Story, Gargoyle, Slice, Cincinnati Review, Confrontation, Harpur Palate... there are hundreds of magazines to submit to for free, more than enough stepping stones to dance on at no expense to oneself. 

Some writers seem to be under the impression that they are sitting in their bedrooms monetizing blank paper every night. That lit mags are profiting from our valuable commodities, and incompetent when they fail. There are profitable magazines, but the factors that went into their establishment can't necessarily be replicated. They are not the rule, they are the exceptions. Back to the above point: everyone is experimenting with business models right now looking for some way to make a literary magazine work. Most fail. Short stories are not jewelry. You often can't give them away (how easy is it to get reads in the workshop?) You have to put them in a box and learn how to sell the box, and it's not an easy trick to pull off.

We could all boycott Glimmer Train and put them out of business. Red Hen Press too. Is that what we want? Is that a better world? More selfishly, if we brought down every magazine that charges a submission fee, do you think establishing a professional writing career would become easier, or more difficult? It's a question worth asking.

(Full disclosure: My high horse is a crack-addicted shetland pony named Al. He'll kick, bite and shit on your shoes, but I'll let you ride him for a $3 fee).

@TheScrivener, I agree completely with a need for transparency, as Jake also detailed above, and think this is the battle that needs to be waged.

And in making a case for the fee system, I'm in no way defending individual operators. Inequitable or abusive editors/magazines need to be outed and shut down.

If you're paying a $3 fee, magazines should be obligated to share their statistics and methodology. Some do--I always get a kick out of the magazines that offer the little "we are very discerning" deterrent in their guidelines--but the vast majority do not.

And agreed, the cost is a sleight-of-hand. You're not paying for that particular service. While the cost is perhaps a wash 1 to 1, the modern author is still able to shoot a story off to thirty markets in one day, choosing to pay for one or two favorites--there is no way to argue it has not been a financial boon for writers. And conversely, if magazines submission piles increase exponentially under the electronic system, it would be a financial bust for magazines--who wants hours added to their work week with no additional compensation?

Another interesting consideration on costs: if we want anonymous submissions, we also have to accept that we are asking magazines to be less profitable. If I demand a magazine choose my story over Stephen King's story on merit alone, I have to accept that it might literally cost them thousands of dollars in potential sales.

There's a lot of absurdity in the economics, when it's all broken down.

If we're really trying to work toward an ideal system, it must be transparent, and built on good faith.

A profit-driven literary scene is inferior to a donation based model. If we want diversity and equal opportunity, instead of Hollywood, we should be willing to pitch in.