For The Love of God, People, The Slush Pile Isn’t Dead

Seth Fischer bio ↓  ·  January 17th, 2010  ·  filed under books

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal published an article by Katherine Rosman lamenting the end of the slush pile. Choosing what to publish is now just as much about marketing, she says, as it is about discovering new writers.

“A primary aim of the slush pile used to be to discover unpublished voices. But today, writing talent isn’t necessarily enough. It helps to have a big-media affiliation, or be effective on TV. … From a publisher’s standpoint, the marketing considerations, especially on non-fiction, now often outweigh the editorial ones.”

M.A. Orthofer at The Literary Saloon thinks big publishers lose the slush pile at their own peril.

“The death of the slush pile (suicidal for the publishers, in my opinion …) will just accelerate the move to self-publishing (and, indeed, self-published books already form a new sort of slush pile, from which conventional publishers occasionally pluck out something), and leave great opportunities for nimbler small publishers who actually care what they put their imprint-name on…”

I agree entirely with Orthofer. And as a little-published writer who’s sending work to slush piles the world over right now, I can only ask, “Wait. Where’s the problem?”

Here’s where I take issue with Rosman: I don’t see how anyone who is paying attention at all can say no one reads through slush piles anymore. The real problem is with the maddeningly small scope at which Rosman and many of the people she interviewed look at the creative world. There are hundreds of new sites that thrive on slush piles. There are countless small journals that do so, too. Does nothing count unless it’s Random House or The Paris Review?  (note: the latter is a great magazine, but I’m not sure I like the low numbers of slush publications cited in the WSJ article.)

HTMLGIANT just posted a hilarious and accurate “five steps to publishing” that compares the steps writers take to get published to the steps you go through when grieving. In the final step, acceptance, the writer says, “You know, it’s actually surprisingly easy for me to just do this myself. Maybe I’ll just start my own small press.”

And though they’re (kind of) kidding, that impulse, I think, is the best reaction we new writers could have to the total disaster that is the big publishing houses and the staggering odds we’re told by everyone, from our mothers to the WSJ, that we face. Because when we branch off, when we create or become a part of a literary (as opposed to profit-driven) institution, we help to build the community, and we also learn to be better writers, and we’re both sending to and reading from slush piles, and on top of all that we gain supporters, and all of the sudden, our odds aren’t so low anymore, and when and if the big publishing houses totally destroy themselves, we’ll be there to take over.

Or maybe our odds are still crap, but in that case, at least we won’t be alone when we fail.

**

Related posts:
-A Necessarily Incomplete But Hopefully Helpful List That Proves The Slush Pile Has a Pulse
-Smart People Talk Short Stories
-THE EDITOR’S DESK: The Price of Rejection
-Blake Butler Goes Long

···
Seth Fischer's writing has appeared in Guernica Magazine, is forthcoming in Pank, has been nominated for the Pushcart Prize, and has won an honorable mention in The Glimmer Train Fiction Open. He is Sunday Editor at this here web site, and he’s the founding editor of www.splintergeneration.com. He lives in San Francisco and has a day job where he sits in a cubicle not too far from an albino alligator. Reach him at seth.fischer (at) gmail.com or @sethfischer. More from this author →

3 Responses to “For The Love of God, People, The Slush Pile Isn’t Dead”

  1. Lee Says:

    It’s not failure not to be read en masse!

  2. Brian Spears Says:

    One of my favorite online poetry journals right now is Redheaded Stepchild, and I sent to them because of their attitude toward the slush pile. They request poems that have been rejected elsewhere, and they want you to include the names of the journals which rejected them in your submission. It’s brilliant, I think, and not just because they published one of mine.

  3. martha Says:

    I couldn’t agree more with the point about building community. I’ve been self publishing a zine for five years. It gets a bad rap- self publishing- but guess what? My zine now has a greater circulation than a lot of journals, I’ve met tons of other great writers, artists and entrepreneurs, bookstore owners, etc. I’ve built up quite a little community all outside of the mainstream publishing world. I get tired of the “keep on plugging away and someday they’ll recognize you” attitude surrounding getting your work published. That has its place but it’s not the only way.

Leave a Reply




Get a cool ass Rumpus t-shirt.

Subscribe to The Daily Rumpus

Email:

Donate to the rumpus