The Gentle Art of Selection: Readers and Sub-committees at Literary Magazines: Guest Post by Tiggy Johnson [10.03.2010]

I was recently asked how I feel about literary journals having readers or sub-committees. The person asking thought it wasn’t necessarily a good thing. It took me a while to realise what I think... and by a while, I mean days.

You see, one of my very first rejection letters came from Meanjin, and while it contained their standard ‘thanks but no thanks’ blurb, it also included an encouraging handwritten comment by then editor Ian Britain. My feeling at the time was if it got as far as him reading and rejecting it, then it did okay. In other words, it didn’t get turfed by the first reader in their line of however many they had. Having never been part of the Meanjin team, I stress that this is what I imagine happened, and is based only on the fact that there is a general feeling within the writing community that this is how it works.

Even if it isn’t, I don’t care...because it felt good. Sure, it was still a rejection, but I was just starting out and to have nearly made it was a good feeling, so I sent the piece out again. While I couldn’t say with certainty whether it was the same story, I received my first acceptance soon afterwards.

About a year later I went through a period where I received many rejections, with most of them suggesting, like this first one did, that I had come close. So I set out on my path without that dark feeling many others talk of after receiving a rejection. Perhaps because of the way it began, or maybe for other reasons, I’ve never been the type of writer to feel a personal rejection when my writing doesn’t make it.

I’m not saying it’s not disappointing or it doesn’t feel frustrating at times, but I don’t take it to heart. Sometimes I even find it amusing. When my short story collection was going through the editing process, there were two stories I tried desperately to have published before the actual book came out. Since the collection was released two years ago, these are the two stories that are most frequently commented upon as being the standout ones. Yet, between them they received more than thirty rejections, another reminder that there’s much subjectivity involved in the process of selection.

Now that I’m on the other side, as editor of page seventeen, I feel it even more. I remember the first time I found a piece we’d rejected in another journal. I was browsing in Readings, and as I scanned the contents of Island, there it was: a poem we’d almost accepted and may have if we hadn’t already accepted another by the same poet. I’m not sure what I thought in that first moment, but I remember laughing and thinking we must be doing okay if poets were sending us the quality of pieces that could be published in quality journals like Island.

These days we use an editorial committee at page seventeen. Perhaps ours differs to some of the others, as our initial readers become part of the selection committee for longer than just that first yay or nay: they attend the selection meeting and their opinion counts just as much as anyone else.

Each year when I consider who might be invited to join our editorial committee, I can’t help but think about publications that use readers in the way I imagine Meanjin did. They don’t just pick anyone. I imagine they ‘test’ them first so the editors are confident their readers are on the right track, insofar as not just recognising good writing, but having an understanding of the style of work that fits the publication.

I’m ready now to answer my friend. I think it’s a good thing literary journals have readers or sub-committees. How else can we expect the next generation of editors to gain experience? Or allow writers to see how it works on the other side?

Tiggy Johnson is a founding editor of page seventeen, which is produced annually and boasts work from several new writers in each issue. Her own writing has been published in several Australian journals and she maintains a personal blog at www.tiggyjohnson.blogspot.com.

Leave a Comment