Confession of error

I like to do submissions. The very nature that word got something sticky and addictive. One-armed bandit play is fairly accurate description of the process.

I understand that artistic submissions to various magazines and publishing houses got a great deal of self-taming. Lots of criterias to fit in. Anyway editor must make difference. But sometimes when you read "not quite fit for us", "keep on trying" and let us not forget "Best of luck in placing it elsewhere." - history comes to mind. And you know what i mean...

The spirit of modernism as we know and love it was in the interpersonal turmoil. And now, in the age of internet and immediate communication - things go pretty in the opposite direction despite all the magazines, presses and blogs and beautiful people. One butt for caresses and another for cracking.

Sometimes it feels that editors really dont need to communicate with those who submit to their ventures. No time to waste! This kind of attitude eliminates the need to evolve. Just stand still so we can make use of you. And get engorgement in the process.

This kind of attitude also makes criticism useless. No need in analysis when you got to perceive so many things. No time to waste. It seems that modern times are all about snapshots and never about a construction. Never about maintaining the feeling that you're taken in the toil. While that thing can turn all the things into the right direction - no one bothers to interact with one another for real. In fact - the distance can change the way the things look. But the distance can solve the problems.

Let's get back to "not quite fit for us" and "keep on trying" and look a little bit closer. So - I dont need to try for editors sake. I dont need "keep on trying"-esque. It's not a chance operations - if you think it is so - hang yourself on yourself and live with it. It's not. Keep on remembering the lyrics of "Higher Ground".

I see something else in "not quite fit for us". Kenneth Goldsmith got an idea of uncreative writing - but here's an old tune, fellas - "make somebody do your thing". Looks similar but the shadow is bigger and longer. Lots of editors got that thing hidden deep in the guidelines, but it also lies in shallow grave of taste. Vision thing. And you have to tune in.

Let's comfort ourselves and call it "different kind of artistic ambitions". If editors got any kind of artistic ambitions - author is not the person responsible for fulfilling THEIR ambitions. However, author got responsibility to fulfill HIS own artistic ambitions. Some editors got an idea of editing wrong. They think authors have to turn into ghost-writers (with no cathchy theme-song, only if you do a parody on it). Oh, that's so cute...

But let us jump and cane the goo away. If editors claim they're filtering submissions not because of artistic quality but because pieces "dont quite fit" - the only way to describe it is "ridiculous subterfuge". In my honest opinion any kind of editing is based on artistic quality and if not - its not editing, its censorship. Sorta everyday censorship - 'cause its all too much (you can follow the tune if you want to)(also - spell the word "gush" and you'll feel the beauty of the moment). Vision thing again. "What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach." And so we have what we have.

Also we must remember that theres always a part of revenge - and i dont think that submitter must be part of that. I dont think that author must become a ghost-writer with the name in order to be published here, there or anywhere. i think this kind of relationship between author and editor just KILLS any kind of creativity with extreme prejudice. And it brings Grey Dull Bore.

Think about tomorrow. Smoulder, dear. Rot. And don't forget to forge your shelter for the fungus.

Make a difference. Or we're lost.