Julia Jones wrote:
In message 000601c08578$d6e55f60$f28c49d5@marian-de-haan.multiweb.nl, Marian de Haan maya@multiweb.nl writes
Julia, I can understand this kind of thing happening and my question wasn't meant as an attack on you or other hard working, human editors. My gripe is with those editors who systematically refuse to respond. It is extremely frustrating to be unable to get a reply, especially as it prevents the writer from submitting the work elsewhere.
Unfortunately, a lot of what's been written in this thread (which did include other people) gave the impression that it is an editor's duty to *accept* (or reject) immediately, not merely acknowledge receipt.
I'm a bit baffled here. I've gone back and read the entire thread twice, and can't find any intimation of such a thing by anyone; I know I didn't say it. Yet given the comment in your previous post about a 'No, thanks' e-mail, I can only conclude this is directed at me.
Nowhere have I suggested limits on the time an editor takes to make a decision about a piece. Only that if a decision isn't going to be made fairly quickly, there should be an acknowledgement of receipt, and that _if_ the decision to reject has been made, the writer should be told so that he can attempt to place it elsewhere. (As a standard procedure; obviously the occasional emergency will cause delays.) What I am objecting to is the 'pocket veto', where an editor decides he doesn't want something and doesn't bother to tell the author. The acknowledgement of receipt just helps the author to know this isn't what's happening, and that it arrived at all.
Nor did I intend to insult you or any other well-intentioned editor; I have no reason to do so. The only fanzine editor I've dealt with is Kathryn Andersen, and she's been responsive and helpful in the extreme.
No, I haven't published a fanzine. OTOH, I have edited a newsletter with an all-volunteer staff, and run numerous volunteer entertainments, and one thing is a constant: volunteers who consider themselves ill-used quickly stop volunteering (this would apply to both writers and editors). It isn't whether they're _actually_ ill-used, but how they perceive it that counts. 'Thank you' is generally all it takes; Sarkoff had a point about courtesy.
Mistral