[john savoie]

With the renewing of the year I paused to take inventory of my submittable account, ten items active in all, five "in-progress," five still just "received."

Among the "in-progress," one is just the light of a distant dead star, submitted to a national book contest last March 1, the winners announced back in September. Why do submittable ( I ask the contest administrators) when you are too lazy to click a box or tap a key?

The other "in-progress" of interest is a piece at VQR for over six months now, over five months in-progress. They shoot for a three month response, but warn of delays. Maybe the piece is receiving advanced consideration. Experience warns me otherwise.

Among the still "received," one has been at Tin House since last February, unopened it seems. Or maybe they have their "top men working on it right now."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M

The other warehoused submission of interest has been out five months at Poetry. On their automated response, these words stand out, shouted in all caps: PLEASE DON'T SUBMIT AGAIN until you hear about this submission. Slow response is their decided strategy for the uninvited. (They did publish me several times a dozen years ago, but those days seem long gone.) Yet somehow Tin House and Poetry keep finding poems to fill their issues.

Not so much a complaint, perhaps a lament.

Best wishes to all for the year still young.

[Michael Juster]

I feel your pain, and would add that it is terrible that journals like The New Republic have changed their guidelines to say that they will get back to submitters only if they feel like it.

[Maryann Corbett]

Yes, it's crazy-making. I can at least testify that Rattle editor Tim Green has admitted (on Facebook) that stuff stays "received" for them until it's accepted or rejected, and my own experience with Rattle subs agrees with that. I think we just have to live with the fact that there's no consistent meaning to changes, or lack of change, from "received" to "in progress."

I actually like journals that make it clear my work is rejected if it's not accepted within a given time. Much better than just failing to respond, which makes me tear my hair.

[Richard Meyer]

Whenever I send out work for consideration by a publisher, I always remind myself that the word submit means to surrender, capitulate, and concede defeat.

Richard

[john savoie]

I've had Rattle subs go in-progress.

Atlantic also no longer notifies of rejection.

[Jayne Osborn]

Richard's wise words about submit made me smile.

Some years ago I received a note from a friend in America, on a pretty card with this message on its front:

"If you feel unhappy about something you can't change, then change the way you feel about it."

I don't submit to more than a couple of venues once in a while; I much prefer to do readings to live audiences, and there's no rejection problem. I've never been booed off a stage - at least, not so far!

Jayne

[Julie Steiner]

Originally Posted by john savoie

On their automated response, these words stand out, shouted in all caps: PLEASE DON'T SUBMIT AGAIN until you hear about this submission.

Wait--there was more text after the capital-letter part? This changes everything! (Or not.)

[john savoie]

That's pasted from their automated response:

PLEASE DON'T SUBMIT AGAIN until you hear about this submission.

The only other bold letters in the message are for the journal itself, POETRY.

So, yes, I can submit again some day.

But it's the matter of emphasis.
And reading the submission promptly or in six months will take the same amount of time for the journal. Waiting six months allows them to utilize my sub as a self-blocker.

[Roger Slater]

But do you think they would notice if you submitted again before hearing on the previous submission? I doubt it.

[john savoie]

I think some kind of flagging could be easily programmed, perhaps disqualifying both submissions. Or the threat could be enough to discourage.