Recently, Rebecca solicited all editors, past and present, of Fence to write essays about their editing practices. Though I began the writing process thinking I would write a lot about audience - and more specifically, how coterie is fetishized in the writing community in a way that reminds me of the developmental theories around masochism first articulated by D. W. Winnicott, I ended up writing, much more boring, about “operations” - all the things we do here at Fence to produce the material object of the magazine itself. I focused in particular on our response times - how long it takes us to let someone know we are interested (or not) in their piece. I suggested, in this essay, that if we could guarantee submitters that we would get back to them one way or another within a month, we could improve the overall quality of our slush-pile because people would submit to us first, knowing they weren’t risking the sort of 6 month or year-long wait they look forward to from most publications. When this issue was brought up in an editorial meeting a couple of months later, someone pointed out that we accept simultaneous submissions, so it shouldn’t matter how long we take to get back to a person, since we’re not asking for exclusivity in the first place. I argued that there was a psychology to the notion of rapid response time - it’s not just that people would feel they weren’t losing time waiting around for a slow editorial board, but also that they would generally think of Fence as organized, together, and engaged… Curious what all your blog-readers (if you exist) think about these highly operational considerations…

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 am. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.