Just a Thought ...

If you were an editor of a journal and got a sub-par story from a well-known writer, would you publish it?

This is not a problem over at Splinter, btw. I just sometimes see "name" writers (whatever that means for that journal) publish just okay stories from familiar names. I wonder about the decision-making process. It's not like most journals are making money or are reaching outside the literary culture. I mean, I'd rather read a brilliant story by someone I've never heard of than read a familiar story from someone I recognize. So what's the incentive for accepting a known writer's just okay story? Did they solicit that story and feel obligated? Do they approach the story with the intent to accept when they approach other stories with less bias?

I just wonder.

On a side note, why do well-published authors often win Narrative contests? Do those writers really enter online journal contests with $20 entry fees? Or are the rumors true -- Narrative is part journal, part scam to direct money towards friends of the editors? I'm not saying that's the case, but it's hard to find another journal where the contest winners are so well published.

Editors Vs. Writers

Via PANK, The Review Review as a great post up by Don Lee, former editor of Ploughshares. He’s talking about the animosity that exists between writers and editors. One part that caught my eye:

What makes [editors] dispirited is the us-versus-them mentality that has developed between writers and editors, linked to accusations that they aren’t open to new writers or that the system is somehow rigged … a hard truth: a submission might be good, but not good enough. This is what writers have problems swallowing. After getting a rejection, instead of taking another look at the story or poem and perhaps revising it or spending a little more time thinking about the most suitable venue for it, it’s much easier to rail against these editors

.
Good but not good enough. That’s a tough one for any writer to swallow. Obviously, in any good journal, good work will have to be rejected to make room for the really good work. But, as a lowly submitter, it’s so hard to know where that line is or even what criteria make up that line. It’s not like we sit down to write a story that’s just “good enough”. We try to write great stories. When they get tossed back, it’s hard to know exactly why.

I get the frustration. Hell, I feel the frustration. But what I don’t get is why some writers hate on editors (Lee describes some truly terrible behavior on the part of rejected writers). Sure, as Lee readily admits, some editors are idiots. But most aren’t. If a journal is good, the editors are probably good. And if the journal isn’t good, why do you want your work in there anyway?