Via their Twitter feed, Fictionaut recently linked this Jim Hanas post arguing against the slush pile.
I’m not sure that I agree with it. I think Hanas is a little too optimistic about editors seeking out and finding good work, if good work can theoretically be found anywhere. Though given that Fictionaut provides exactly the sort of system that Hanas is talking about (and has been embraced by the editors of some journals and small presses), it’s understandable that they’re enthusiastic about this argument.
Admittedly, I do in fact have a Fictionaut page. I’ve been seeking homes for two stories for a while now, and have been pondering shrugging my shoulders, posting them on said Fictionaut page, and moving on. I can understand Hanas’s argument; I’m less sure that I agree with it as an overarching philosophy.
Hey Tobias — as one of the co-founders of Fictionaut, I’d reverse one sentence: since we’re enthusiastic about this argument, we provide the sort of system Hanas is talking about. I’ve experienced the frustrations of the slush pile from every angle, as reader, writer, and editor, and we built Fictionaut as a way to tackle some of those problems in a new way. Is this approach optimistic? Sure, you have to be in order to start something new. So far, it appears to be working.
Jurgen — That makes sense. As someone who’s used Fictionaut, I’m not entirely sure whether I should consider it a place to put stories that don’t necessarily fit elsewhere (and thus theoretically create a space where they might work), or as a way to submit them for consideration without…submitting them for consideration per se. (Some of this confusion may come from the fact that the first few stories I’d seen on there were excerpts from existing work — Christian TeBordo’s, for instance.)
I also wasn’t sure, from the model that Hanas proposes, whether editors would look for work that’s already been posted on writers’ websites, or would solicit work from writers based on that. Which is, admittedly, neither here nor there…