Wow, has Twitter always been a hotbed of chaos?
This time a line of Us Vs. Them has been drawn between creative writers and editors over a short, but quasi-accusatory email. Again, by the time I’ve sat down to write the story, the parties in question have deleted their tweets. Unlike last time, however, I have taken a screenshot. In the interest of not making the situation messier than it already is, however, I will not be posting it.
That doesn’t mean I won’t summarize it, though.
The Situation
The tweet (paraphrased) is as follows:
“Sorry, not sorry. Not my fault that my stuff gets picked up so fast. I won’t be submitting again anytime soon. Also, I hadn’t submitted anything here in six months, so not sure what they’re talking about.”
Below the tweet is a screenshot of an email sent to the person tweeting. It’s titled Re: Submission, and the email says (again, paraphrased, but mostly word for word):
“Thanks for informing us. We noticed you submit often, withdrawing after a couple of days. Please know that, when this happens, it can drain the time and resources of our editors, and also takes up space other writers might inhabit. So we ask that in the future, keep in mind our response time is month, not days, and also to keep the times you submit at a reasonable clip. This isn’t for you specifically — we’ve recently updated our submission guidelines with language to this effect, with an eye on making space for all writers. We just wanted to point this out. Thank you.
The Reaction
If you can’t tell by now, the reaction wasn’t pretty. I wouldn’t call it an entire pile-on, but if the original tweeter had more followers, or if the magazine had been more well-known, it definitely could’ve been. As it is, the literary magazine has deleted their Twitter, though their website is still up and running.
What Went Wrong from the Perspective of ‘Us’?
If you can’t tell at least a little of what went wrong, then put somebody else in charge of your social media accounts. If you can, then congrats. You may survive social media yet.
Here’s the full list of what went wrong:
Mistake #1: Accusatory Language
… Please know that, when this happens, it can drain the time and resources of our editors, and also takes up space other writers might inhabit. So we ask that in the future, keep in mind our response time is month, not days, and also to keep the times you submit at a reasonable clip.
Let’s look at this bad boy. What pops out at you? To me, it’s:
- “it can drain”
- “takes up space”
Now, why do these words pop out so much? Why do these phrases, out of the entire sentence, reverberate?
It’s because they sound accusatory.
Don’t believe me? Let’s twist the entire sentence around. Let’s put a replacement subject in the beginning half of the sentence.
“Your writing can drain the time and resources of our writers, and also takes up space other writers might inhabit.”
Yes, I know this isn’t what the text says, and it’s probably not what the journal intended, but jot this down: regardless of intention, people will always interpret words in their own way. Unfortunately, this email has enough words associated with accusational phrasing that it wasn’t hard to make the leap.
(You’d think a literary journal, of all platforms, would realize the power of words and review thoroughly before hitting send, but I digress).
Mistake #2: Contradictory Statements
If people don’t react well to accusations, then they definitely don’t like contradictory statements made after an accusation —
This isn’t for you specifically — we’ve recently updated our submission guidelines with language to this effect, with an eye on making space for all writers. We just wanted to point this out. Thank you.
— and ‘this isn’t for you specifically’ coupled with the aforementioned accusatory tone isn’t a good look for anyone. You can’t start off the second sentence with “We noticed you…”, continue in an accusatory-like manner, and then finish with “this isn’t for you specifically”.
That’s just not how it works.
Mistake #3 No One Likes it When You Hold a Grudge
As the original tweet stated, the original poster had submitted nothing to the publication in six months.
For further context, in the tweet thread, the literary journal clarified that the original tweeter had submitted to their journals eight times in two years and that it was a lot of work for a team of three to four editors to read every single submission, only for the submission they were currently deciding upon to be withdrawn at the last minute.
Now I’ve never edited for a literary journal, but I have line edited a few manuscripts, and I can see how that can be annoying to have the work you were overseeing yanked from under your nose.
And yet, from a layperson’s point of view, that sounds really, really petty. And 9 times out of 10? It’s the laypeople’s point of view you’ll have to defend yourself against, and laypeople don’t like it when you’re holding a grudge.
Emailing six months after the last submission, filled with accusatory-adjacent language over eight submissions spread over two years? You will sound like you’re holding a grudge.
4. They Revealed Themselves
So in the original tweet and the accompanying screenshot of the email, the literary journal was not named at all.
Let me repeat this.
The original tweet didn’t have the literary journal’s name at ALL.
Having had no hats in the ring, the literary journal joined the rodeo. They responded to the tweet, drawing more eyes to the argument than if they hadn’t responded at all while also giving people a place to direct their ire to. Not a good move.
Unless you’re planning on a SINCERE and UNEMPTY apology, you should never ever respond to an anonymous callout. You can direct message them — keeping in mind that DM’s aren’t as private as you think they are — and try to rectify the argument there, but if you are not publically called out, there’s no need to reveal yourself and justify.
Having the last word isn’t a sign of victory. From the layperson's standpoint, it’s a sign of over defensiveness and control issues. If they don’t tag and/or state your name/brand name, just leave it alone!
5. It was Entirely Avoidable
Anyone who’s anyone in the writing industry knows what simultaneous submissions are. If you don’t know, simultaneous submissions are when writers send one work they have to multiple publications. They do this, understanding that once they’re accepted in one publication, they will tell the other publications and those publications will disregard that work and it’ll be retracted.
Of course, that’s a lot of emails and logistics. Most publications can’t be bothered and they have a notice on their submission guidelines that say, “We don’t allow simultaneous submissions.”
And that’s it.
There’s no fuss. There’s no, “By being accepted in another publication, you’ve drained our writers and took up space.” It’s, “We don’t accept simultaneous submissions.” Simple and easy standard industry lingo.
Tips for Not Becoming ‘Them’
Don’t become a ‘them’ in ‘them vs. us’. If you want to communicate to the masses:
- REMEMBER, regardless of any intentions, people will interpret your words however they wish. Be careful not to sound accusatory or arrogant. The internet WILL drive you back a peg and will not be quiet about it.
- REMEMBER, private conversations don’t stay private on the internet. DO NOT assume you are safe even through private forms of communication (letters, DMs, etc.)
- NEVER interact when your name/brand isn’t explicitly stated, especially during a callout. Unless people can figure out it’s your brand/name through hints, let things stay anonymous.
