Something else to consider if you are trying to attract marginalized writers.

[ritaxis]

There's been a nice healthy conversation going on lately about how editors can recruit marginalized writers to submit to their magazines, websites, and anthologies. Tonight I hit head-on to a barrier that I don't believe has been discussed lately: the actual language of the submission guidelines. I seriously had to guess and google several terms, including one that simply didn't appear anywhere until I input the whole phrase it was in. Well. The string of letters showed up, but in every result they pointed to cell phone technology, and I was pretty sure that wasn't the thing at issue.

I'm an old-timer, which means I know a lot of jargon but also that a lot of jargon sprung up while I wasn't looking. I'm also a lot more bullheaded than I was when I was younger--I might have given up after the second paragraph, even though there were sentences meant to reassure the potential submitter that they didn't have to be a particular type of person. But. It was quite clear that when the guidelines were written, the editors had simply assumed that anybody who fit their desired demographic and was interested in these issues just would know these words. They hadn't questioned themselves at all on what being inclusive means, in the larger sense.

Imagine this: you're a young person and your pockets are burning up with that great new passionate story you've written that seems like it maybe fits that anthology you stumbled on. And there's a whole pile of stuff in the guidelines you think you can guess at the meaning of, but you're not sure, and oh well crap, they probably only want somebody who can use those words correctly anyhow. What next? What fantastic new writer will not be submitting to that anthology?

Don't assume that everyone who wants to submit to your publication is a Tumblr or facebook activist or has had queer theory classes in a high-tone liberal arts college. By this I mean, don't use buckets of jargon and words which mean one thing in context and another thing in general language without defining them for the newcomer. Assume that you might be interested in very young or very old working-class writers who might even be new to the internet, let alone your specialized vocabulary. Welcome them by giving them a bridge. Define those terms in a casual, friendly, accessible way.

I definitely do not mean "don't use the vocabulary your cohort has been carefully developing to make it easier to talk with precision about things that matter to you. I mean do enrich your prose with embedded definitions so you don't make people do crazy google search term gymnastics just to know what the hell you're talking about.

Comments

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

URL?

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

not here. I'm not picking a fight.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

LJ inbox me!

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

already did.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

I am intrigued and I'm wondering if the language in question might also deter non-Usians? I will be discreet if you care to send a personal LJ message with the link.

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

I think the specific call for submissions can be easily found by poking around in the usual places. I suspect I know which one it is.

I do heartily second your recommendation, especially for working-class writers. However, when people claim inclusiveness as part of their call for submission, but cloak their submission guidelines in insider language, all they're really doing is redefining the set of insiders and not necessarily being inclusive. If you don't already know the terms, then doesn't matter if you possess the characteristics they're seeking in the name of "inclusiveness."

Then again, things could be worse. I hear the Sad Puppies are stirring to life again, and the number of "likewise" usages in the excerpt I read incited a wee bit of brain hurt. We all have earworms, but I'd like to think that a writer would at least bother to try to reread and edit a call for action. Or whatever that was supposed to be.

[al-zorra.livejournal.com]

I still always hear it isn't the cover letter that sells the story, but the story itself. (And, of course who you are, i.e. someone known and liked, butThey never have and will never admit to that! anymore than admit They blackball those whom They don't like!)

Is that no longer the case? Or -- is this something else?

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

This is the language of the description and guidelines, which is so opaque that if you have not been living in fandom's pockets for the last year of screaming matches you'd have no clue what they're talking about... and they say they want marginalized (by which they mean underrepresented) writers.