flashquake Editor's Corner

CHANGES
by Debi Orton

Thanksgiving Day, 2002

As you scroll through this issue of flashquake, you'll notice some changes.

First, we're no longer ranking the finalists in each category. We decided that it made more sense to simply present the work without overlaying it with our subjective impressions about its relative merit.

Another subtle change you'll see if you look at our contributors page is the astonishing level of accomplishment achieved by our contributors. We feel very honored to be able to feature these artists and writers to you.

A quick review of our writers' guidelines will also reveal a major change for flashquake — we will no longer be accepting flash plays. This decision is not without regret, but for the past few issues, we've had a hard time finding plays that we feel live up to the high standards set by the other sections we publish. In fact, we've had such a surfeit of fine submissions that because of our limited resources, we've had to turn down some fine, quality fiction and nonfiction and poetry. Closing our play section will allow us to share more of the other fine writing we've been receiving in other categories.

Our last issue marked a milepost for flashquake — our first year of publication — and we feel it's evolved into a journal that we can be enormously proud of. And we've been equally proud of the work we've been privileged to present to you. We took some time out during this busiest of seasons to review and reflect upon the work we've featured during this first year. Each editor selected some of his or her favorites to compile a short list from which to select six of the most outstanding for Pushcart Prize nominations.

That original list numbered approximately 20, but once the votes were tallied, there were — miraculously — six clear favorites. Those favorites became flashquake's Pushcart Prize nominees, and we're delighted to share them with you.

There is one more change but this may require a bit more explanation. When we started flashquake, all of us were published writers, who had each amassed a large stack of rejection notices along with our publication credits. We tried to design our publication process to reflect the best of all worlds. We all agreed that one of the most frustrating things to receive was a rejection that didn't tell you why your work wasn't suitable. So, to satify that natural writer's curiosity, we decided to compile and return our editors' comments with rejections.

The vast majority of comments we receive on this policy are positive, from writers who appreciate knowing. From time to time, though, we do get complaints from writers who take exception to one of our editor's opinions or to one of the comments made.

During this cycle, we received a repeat complaint from a writer who felt that our editors' comments were dismissive, and who chided us for not offering more contstructive suggestions on how the writer could improve. In closing, the writer resolved never to read or submit to us again.

Naturally, hearing that is distressing for us. But subsequent to this writer's note, we received more than a dozen messages from other writers whose work was rejected, telling us how much they appreciated knowing why.

So we've modified our guidelines somewhat so that future contributors will have a realistic expectation about what to expect from our editors' comments. Frankly, it isn't our job to offer constructive criticism. There are plenty of for-pay consultants out there who will read your work and provide all the constructive criticism you can stand.

It's our job to read each and every submission, no matter what we feel about the subject of the work, and provide an honest opinion. It's our job to provide notification to the writer who's sent us one of their creations, in as timely a manner as we can.

But ultimately, it's our job to find the best possible literature to share with our readers, to encourage talented writers by paying them for the privilege of sharing their work with the world. It's our job to present it in as appealing a manner as possible, and to make sure as many people as possible know it's here.

We're getting around 5,000 unique visits per month now, and that's impressive. For each issue of flashquake, that's 15,000 more people who know about the talent our contributors have. And ultimately that's 60,000 people each year who enjoy this collection of works by artists and writers from all over the world. That's good for the writers, and it's good for flash literature.

That's what we're thankful for this year.

Copyright 2002 by Debi Orton

HOME | Contributors | Archives | Contact | Guidelines