Writers as Subscribers
Of the writers we've published during the last two years, 32% subscribed after their work was accepted.
Of the writers we rejected over the past year, 8% responded to our special offer—when we returned their manuscripts—three issues for $10.
When Poets & Writers surveyed its subscribers, it found that half didn't subscribe to any litmag whatsoever.
So it goes.
Of the writers we rejected over the past year, 8% responded to our special offer—when we returned their manuscripts—three issues for $10.
When Poets & Writers surveyed its subscribers, it found that half didn't subscribe to any litmag whatsoever.
So it goes.
posted by Howard Junker at 7:22 AM
1 Comments:
As I see it, there's a few hundred years of literature by writers with reputations that have exceeded their human existences, sitting on shelves, waiting to be read by me. All the monumental greats. Why would young writers read what is brand new, rather than what is already established?
It would be good to read everything, but where is the time? And of course, even with disregard for contemporaries, we all want to be contemporarily published. (To be read by the few subscribers, I guess).
There's also just a little money involved.
I enjoy ZYZZYVA, but you see, the idea of being selected for print is so often more compelling than the writing that is printed (in any litmag). It's not about glory, it's about legitimacy.
That's what I think, anyway.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home