But what is a deal-breaker for one writer isn’t necessarily for another. Some can tolerate a “no response means a rejection” while others find it abysmal.
Some of mine are:
1. Exceptionally rude editors (and not just once due to a bad day).
2. No response means “no”. I follow your guidelines to the letter, you respond, it’s fair.
3. Proof of unread manuscripts- Anytime anyone has damning evidence that not all submissions are read… yeah. Hard to prove, though.
4. Shady editors that have a history of nonpayment/weaseling out of agreements.
5. Places that keep telling you different things or mess up to the point of almost sabotaging your career. Yup, had it happen.
6. Any editor that asks me to lie for whatever reason.
7. Anywhere that uses a piece without author consent/knowledge.
8. Extensive editing done without author input/approval. I have had to withdraw a piece because an editor and I had different visions for a poem. I wouldn’t be happy if alterations were done behind my back.
I’m sure there are more. When I speak of a magazine/publisher telling you different things, I am not speaking of occasional wires crossed but flat-out no one knows what anyone else is doing. It may not be done with malice but the affects can be dangerous.
What are your qualifications for blacklists?
I do wish we could always get a response from someone. I understand they're busy though, but it would just be awesome to hear back even if it is a "no." :)ReplyDelete
Hi Jennifer! Been awhile! Nice to see you again. :DReplyDelete
I think not responding to work sent in has to be the worst. It's such an unprofessional way to handle things, and I've heard from experienced professionals that we as authors/writers should feel it's our right to check back on our work.