Men in publishing; defending gatekeepers; reflections on the African literary ecosystem; "starfuckers;" imposter syndrome; editor interviews; publishing advice; poetry reviews; and more
I have two responses, besides my usual "You've posted another banger, Becky!" First, The printing press debuted in 1440 and women only started shining in the literary world in the 21st century. Thus men, particularly white men from first world countries, wailing about their work not being treated equitably does not move me in the least. Ours is not a desire for vengeance, it is rather recognizing that *women are still under actual physical, political, and economic threat* all around the world and telling our stories is not just a matter of satisfaction for us but rather of SURVIVAL. Second, it is worth noticing that those who are able to dedicate themselves to literary work are often the people who have the social and economic privilege to do so, and for them to be the main gatekeepers at prestige presses and publications is problematic because they possess a point of view and aesthetic that is inevitably tinted by that privilege and dismissive of alternative aesthetics and points of view. As long as we do not have major governmental INVESTMENT OF MONEY in culture --- now, we have aggressive DISINVESTMENT in it thanks to the current wave of populism and global tehcno-fascism, which is also male-driven BTW, the gatekeepers of literature will continue to be white, wealthy, largely male, and from hegemonic cultures.
“Who decides what’s in and out?” Caudell suggests we shouldn’t lose sleep over literary gatekeepers or their selections.
Yet the rest of this article proceeds to outline precisely how those very gatekeepers do hold significance—even if in a less favorable manner.
Caudell is right: these institutions don’t economically support or care for independent writers. Recognized writers are lucky enough to often have small, niche audiences of fellow writers as well as readers.
But Caudell does face a contradiction—claiming it is irrelevant who gets published in major outlets, while then talking about it extensively as a way to argue that those outlets do not help most writers. It reads like frustration with the system—which is fair. Can’t say I blame the fellow.
Hyper-competitiveness and blind gatekeeping in the literary world fail to uphold true merit or logic—and prevent a literary community of writers and readers from flourishing. The focus becomes competition for its own sake, rather than artistic purpose or growth.
While standards are important, work that resonates with readers is often dismissed as merely “commercial,” as if popularity somehow makes it less valuable or less literary.
Gatekeeping hides its own hypocritical nature and literary hierarchy. It is not a total meritocracy as it pretends. The traditional publishing industry asserts that it operates based on “quality” or “literary merit.” However, what is rewarded as “good writing” is often defined by narrow, historically white, Eurocentric, elite standards.
It’s time to acknowledge and publish unique or culturally specific voices that are often brushed off as “too niche,” “lacking universality,” or “not literary enough.”
Submissions often face the scrutiny of editors and agents whose judgments are influenced by their personal biases—whether overt or subtle—often based on who knows whom, what school someone attended, or how well-connected they are, rather than literary merit.
Let’s not fool ourselves; “literary merit” is often a disguise for class, privilege, and access—not pure talent or innovation.
This is not meritocracy; it’s blind discrimination camouflaged as cultural taste, dictating to the world what it considers to be great literature.
Many writers from underrepresented backgrounds often find themselves without access to prestigious MFA programs, celebrity endorsements, trust funds, tech industry connections, high-powered law firms, exclusive country clubs, or elite literary circles. Poor writers can’t even splurge on a $50 New York City salad. So, they settle for a large slice of cheese pizza from BD Star Pizza in Brooklyn—for 99 cents. Or a dollar hot dog at the Met that hits the spot. Lol.
Yes, poor writers do not have the money, time, or mentorship to navigate the publishing industry. Not that the rich care—they easily afford their art and craft. Of course, this traditional publishing system benefits the rich, so they never complain about it, change it, or do anything about it. It is probably why we keep seeing the same upper-class writers getting into these magazines—generation after generation, always the same types of voices.
Poor writers are not encouraged to write in the ways gatekeepers expect (e.g., using “standard” forms or tones). If only the wealthy can afford to buy themselves a writing education and career, then promoting “diversity” without giving access is just another virtue signal.
Publishing will likely always be messy. Reasons for this will always evolve. At the moment, there’s great emphasis on including previously marginalized writers, a necessary mission. Yet ultimately I want the best literature because I don’t care about the background of most writers now that I find a more level field of engagement for everyone. But I don’t kid myself that “more fair” means “fair.” The problems of getting out the best writing from the most talented authors may never be solved. It may remain a source of tension and frustration.
Tastes of editors and readers vary. The economics of publishing, subscribing and submitting will always wrinkle too many scenarios. Let’s keep doing the best we can and abandon any illusions that the system of literary publishing is ultimately fair. Let’s not just do what we can to keep the literary world and its venues lively and inspiring. Let’s lift up those around us as we keep trying to lift ourselves. It will never work out fully but let’s keep working anyway. And not privilege anyone any more than we have to so we can get sontemporary available literature to represent the many and speak to the many.
There is no doubt a section of the publishing world dedicated to redressing the gender balance and I have no problem with that generally, providing we add race, colour, and nationality to that list of the under-represented in US publishing. However, I also think that there is a type of white male writing that rarely makes it past the editor's desk because of its subject matter, especially when the less than pure behaviour of some women raises its ugly head or when activities of little interest to some women are featured, despite the clear literary merits of the work.
I'll use a couple of instances I've experienced that some of you may have seen me mention before:
- A lesbian character who hated all men had to be re-written in case readers though that the publication itself thought that.
- A reference to a female character who noted that her biological clock was ticking was greeted with an editor saying that women these days don't talk like that.
- On the national identity front, even beyond the imperialistic demand that writers use American English, I've been asked to remove references to local foods, slang, and culture etc. I can only imagine the cultural furore if an editor demanded that of an African writer.
I appreciate your real-life examples. Writers (and translators, BTW, who are writers, too) have to communicate more with each other, share these experiences, and develop clear guidance about such matters that we can (almost) all agree on. By doing so, we can have a chance to shape how lit mags operate. If we don't do so, we are simply farting in the wind. I think this entire conversation would be appropriate, for example, at a venue like the Authors Guild where standards and education are the focus.
I predict the "disappearing white men in publishing" will be a forgotten subject in a few months. Just a full-circle of the same identity shit that confounds people to no end.
Unless a publication uses and serves a certain tribe - which they have every right to do per their own lights - I still hold that the overwhelming majority of editors and publishers just want something that hits and really don't care where it comes from.
I would like to see an actual tally of how many authors in what groups have been published in in literary magazines or by publishing houses the last five years.
Male authors complaining about successful women authors is nothing new. In 1855, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote his publisher that “America is now wholly given over to a damn mob of scribbling women, and I should have no chance of success while the public taste is occupied with their trash and should be ashamed of myself if I did succeed.”
It is imperative to address concerns about the representation of white men in publishing, as well as any other demographic group, and not dismiss them as a trend. This overlooks the tough realities of publishing, which need deeper discussion.
This whole idea that this type of literary discussion is just a fad and will go away in months is not true. Claiming that editors don’t care where the material comes from and who is writing it is not correct. Editors and publications do, in fact, look for outstanding, original writing that impresses them and that they sense audiences will like. Yet, we all know that editors often publish works that reflect cultural preferences, current trends, and identity considerations. It is not purely meritocratic. Even without meaning to, biases can shape which voices are seen as “mainstream” or “niche,” and “innovative” or “political.” We all know that publications often rely on networking and university connections—connections that are tied to identity. So, the notion that these types of headlines or articles will go away in a few months is nonsense.
The article about the “disappearance of white men” highlights concerns about evolving power dynamics. The decreased presence of white men in certain literary spaces is not necessarily reverse discrimination. This could be an attempt to address the historical underrepresentation of certain groups in publishing. The unease might arise from the status quo losing its dominance as the primary group of published writers.
The idea that publications serving a certain group of people have the right to do so per their “own lights” is extremely hypocritical. That highlights the hypocrisy of white-majority literary spaces, which historically excluded others under the guise of not being ‘fit,’ or while serving their own tribe—meaning having a white male identity has, in fact, always mattered.
Also, a writer is not truly “rejected” from a publication just because someone’s tribe says so—though the irony of that power structure and elitist mob mentality highlights why these types of headlines need to be discussed and analyzed for years to come, rather than fade into obscurity.
It is long overdue that this power structure be exposed in the sunlight for what it is, and these literary discussions about fairness, access, and representation are not a trend—it is a long-awaited reckoning.
The fatigue with identity discourse is itself part of the problem. Identity is integral to art and publishing; it shapes storytelling, selection, and consumption. Ignoring a problem keeps the status quo—none of which is innovative or revolutionary, serving the higher good of literature and its readers.
While the headline of “disappearing white men” may fade, the issues of voice, representation, and cultural power in publishing will persist. The topic will continue to appear in headlines, be discussed at conferences, and be covered in published essays for some time. It is expected that the discussion will persist for several months—or years—in many different forms, as it should be, regardless of whose tribe does not like it.
So much great stuff in here! Thank you for including me. I'm really looking forward to your interview with Off Assignment - it's a lit mag I'm super interested in.
I found the article on male writers thought-provoking. While I agree that women writers need to be taken as seriously as men when it comes to publishing, and for many years they weren’t, (I’m speaking from an 82-year perspective), I wonder if it has been skewed? It’s like the movie Barbie—-which I definitely liked. However, I wonder how I would portray Ken to my son if he were a child. Would I want him to be “just Ken”—-only there for Barbie? (Btw, Barbie didn’t have small women portrayed-under 5’—either). I just once would like us all to be worthy equally, humans without the weight shifting heavier in one direction. I mean, good writing is good writing. Should it be based on gender rather than quality? I’m a little worried now that my writing is getting accepted frequently in the last few years, not because it’s good, but because I’m a women, and an older women at that. That’s like fixing the boxing match—-although not that violently.😄
I have actually seen female editors say male writers just have to accept being ignored because it's time for female writers to dominate.
I had to give the editor credit for at least being honest even though her sentiment was deplorable.
I've seen this too.
The Kultur Karens.
Sometimes the mask falls away and the lady commissars show us who they really are.
I have two responses, besides my usual "You've posted another banger, Becky!" First, The printing press debuted in 1440 and women only started shining in the literary world in the 21st century. Thus men, particularly white men from first world countries, wailing about their work not being treated equitably does not move me in the least. Ours is not a desire for vengeance, it is rather recognizing that *women are still under actual physical, political, and economic threat* all around the world and telling our stories is not just a matter of satisfaction for us but rather of SURVIVAL. Second, it is worth noticing that those who are able to dedicate themselves to literary work are often the people who have the social and economic privilege to do so, and for them to be the main gatekeepers at prestige presses and publications is problematic because they possess a point of view and aesthetic that is inevitably tinted by that privilege and dismissive of alternative aesthetics and points of view. As long as we do not have major governmental INVESTMENT OF MONEY in culture --- now, we have aggressive DISINVESTMENT in it thanks to the current wave of populism and global tehcno-fascism, which is also male-driven BTW, the gatekeepers of literature will continue to be white, wealthy, largely male, and from hegemonic cultures.
“Who decides what’s in and out?” Caudell suggests we shouldn’t lose sleep over literary gatekeepers or their selections.
Yet the rest of this article proceeds to outline precisely how those very gatekeepers do hold significance—even if in a less favorable manner.
Caudell is right: these institutions don’t economically support or care for independent writers. Recognized writers are lucky enough to often have small, niche audiences of fellow writers as well as readers.
But Caudell does face a contradiction—claiming it is irrelevant who gets published in major outlets, while then talking about it extensively as a way to argue that those outlets do not help most writers. It reads like frustration with the system—which is fair. Can’t say I blame the fellow.
Hyper-competitiveness and blind gatekeeping in the literary world fail to uphold true merit or logic—and prevent a literary community of writers and readers from flourishing. The focus becomes competition for its own sake, rather than artistic purpose or growth.
While standards are important, work that resonates with readers is often dismissed as merely “commercial,” as if popularity somehow makes it less valuable or less literary.
Gatekeeping hides its own hypocritical nature and literary hierarchy. It is not a total meritocracy as it pretends. The traditional publishing industry asserts that it operates based on “quality” or “literary merit.” However, what is rewarded as “good writing” is often defined by narrow, historically white, Eurocentric, elite standards.
It’s time to acknowledge and publish unique or culturally specific voices that are often brushed off as “too niche,” “lacking universality,” or “not literary enough.”
Submissions often face the scrutiny of editors and agents whose judgments are influenced by their personal biases—whether overt or subtle—often based on who knows whom, what school someone attended, or how well-connected they are, rather than literary merit.
Let’s not fool ourselves; “literary merit” is often a disguise for class, privilege, and access—not pure talent or innovation.
This is not meritocracy; it’s blind discrimination camouflaged as cultural taste, dictating to the world what it considers to be great literature.
Many writers from underrepresented backgrounds often find themselves without access to prestigious MFA programs, celebrity endorsements, trust funds, tech industry connections, high-powered law firms, exclusive country clubs, or elite literary circles. Poor writers can’t even splurge on a $50 New York City salad. So, they settle for a large slice of cheese pizza from BD Star Pizza in Brooklyn—for 99 cents. Or a dollar hot dog at the Met that hits the spot. Lol.
Yes, poor writers do not have the money, time, or mentorship to navigate the publishing industry. Not that the rich care—they easily afford their art and craft. Of course, this traditional publishing system benefits the rich, so they never complain about it, change it, or do anything about it. It is probably why we keep seeing the same upper-class writers getting into these magazines—generation after generation, always the same types of voices.
Poor writers are not encouraged to write in the ways gatekeepers expect (e.g., using “standard” forms or tones). If only the wealthy can afford to buy themselves a writing education and career, then promoting “diversity” without giving access is just another virtue signal.
Publishing will likely always be messy. Reasons for this will always evolve. At the moment, there’s great emphasis on including previously marginalized writers, a necessary mission. Yet ultimately I want the best literature because I don’t care about the background of most writers now that I find a more level field of engagement for everyone. But I don’t kid myself that “more fair” means “fair.” The problems of getting out the best writing from the most talented authors may never be solved. It may remain a source of tension and frustration.
Tastes of editors and readers vary. The economics of publishing, subscribing and submitting will always wrinkle too many scenarios. Let’s keep doing the best we can and abandon any illusions that the system of literary publishing is ultimately fair. Let’s not just do what we can to keep the literary world and its venues lively and inspiring. Let’s lift up those around us as we keep trying to lift ourselves. It will never work out fully but let’s keep working anyway. And not privilege anyone any more than we have to so we can get sontemporary available literature to represent the many and speak to the many.
There is no doubt a section of the publishing world dedicated to redressing the gender balance and I have no problem with that generally, providing we add race, colour, and nationality to that list of the under-represented in US publishing. However, I also think that there is a type of white male writing that rarely makes it past the editor's desk because of its subject matter, especially when the less than pure behaviour of some women raises its ugly head or when activities of little interest to some women are featured, despite the clear literary merits of the work.
I'll use a couple of instances I've experienced that some of you may have seen me mention before:
- A lesbian character who hated all men had to be re-written in case readers though that the publication itself thought that.
- A reference to a female character who noted that her biological clock was ticking was greeted with an editor saying that women these days don't talk like that.
- On the national identity front, even beyond the imperialistic demand that writers use American English, I've been asked to remove references to local foods, slang, and culture etc. I can only imagine the cultural furore if an editor demanded that of an African writer.
I appreciate your real-life examples. Writers (and translators, BTW, who are writers, too) have to communicate more with each other, share these experiences, and develop clear guidance about such matters that we can (almost) all agree on. By doing so, we can have a chance to shape how lit mags operate. If we don't do so, we are simply farting in the wind. I think this entire conversation would be appropriate, for example, at a venue like the Authors Guild where standards and education are the focus.
I predict the "disappearing white men in publishing" will be a forgotten subject in a few months. Just a full-circle of the same identity shit that confounds people to no end.
Unless a publication uses and serves a certain tribe - which they have every right to do per their own lights - I still hold that the overwhelming majority of editors and publishers just want something that hits and really don't care where it comes from.
I would like to see an actual tally of how many authors in what groups have been published in in literary magazines or by publishing houses the last five years.
Male authors complaining about successful women authors is nothing new. In 1855, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote his publisher that “America is now wholly given over to a damn mob of scribbling women, and I should have no chance of success while the public taste is occupied with their trash and should be ashamed of myself if I did succeed.”
It is imperative to address concerns about the representation of white men in publishing, as well as any other demographic group, and not dismiss them as a trend. This overlooks the tough realities of publishing, which need deeper discussion.
This whole idea that this type of literary discussion is just a fad and will go away in months is not true. Claiming that editors don’t care where the material comes from and who is writing it is not correct. Editors and publications do, in fact, look for outstanding, original writing that impresses them and that they sense audiences will like. Yet, we all know that editors often publish works that reflect cultural preferences, current trends, and identity considerations. It is not purely meritocratic. Even without meaning to, biases can shape which voices are seen as “mainstream” or “niche,” and “innovative” or “political.” We all know that publications often rely on networking and university connections—connections that are tied to identity. So, the notion that these types of headlines or articles will go away in a few months is nonsense.
The article about the “disappearance of white men” highlights concerns about evolving power dynamics. The decreased presence of white men in certain literary spaces is not necessarily reverse discrimination. This could be an attempt to address the historical underrepresentation of certain groups in publishing. The unease might arise from the status quo losing its dominance as the primary group of published writers.
The idea that publications serving a certain group of people have the right to do so per their “own lights” is extremely hypocritical. That highlights the hypocrisy of white-majority literary spaces, which historically excluded others under the guise of not being ‘fit,’ or while serving their own tribe—meaning having a white male identity has, in fact, always mattered.
Also, a writer is not truly “rejected” from a publication just because someone’s tribe says so—though the irony of that power structure and elitist mob mentality highlights why these types of headlines need to be discussed and analyzed for years to come, rather than fade into obscurity.
It is long overdue that this power structure be exposed in the sunlight for what it is, and these literary discussions about fairness, access, and representation are not a trend—it is a long-awaited reckoning.
The fatigue with identity discourse is itself part of the problem. Identity is integral to art and publishing; it shapes storytelling, selection, and consumption. Ignoring a problem keeps the status quo—none of which is innovative or revolutionary, serving the higher good of literature and its readers.
While the headline of “disappearing white men” may fade, the issues of voice, representation, and cultural power in publishing will persist. The topic will continue to appear in headlines, be discussed at conferences, and be covered in published essays for some time. It is expected that the discussion will persist for several months—or years—in many different forms, as it should be, regardless of whose tribe does not like it.
So much great stuff in here! Thank you for including me. I'm really looking forward to your interview with Off Assignment - it's a lit mag I'm super interested in.
Thank you for including me in this excellent roundup!
I found the article on male writers thought-provoking. While I agree that women writers need to be taken as seriously as men when it comes to publishing, and for many years they weren’t, (I’m speaking from an 82-year perspective), I wonder if it has been skewed? It’s like the movie Barbie—-which I definitely liked. However, I wonder how I would portray Ken to my son if he were a child. Would I want him to be “just Ken”—-only there for Barbie? (Btw, Barbie didn’t have small women portrayed-under 5’—either). I just once would like us all to be worthy equally, humans without the weight shifting heavier in one direction. I mean, good writing is good writing. Should it be based on gender rather than quality? I’m a little worried now that my writing is getting accepted frequently in the last few years, not because it’s good, but because I’m a women, and an older women at that. That’s like fixing the boxing match—-although not that violently.😄
TY for including my essay!! <3
I think you accidentally tagged my audio podcast series, The Lit Mag Lab, which I started in April...
Oh, thanks for letting me know, Vevna! There are apparently two Lit Mag Labs on Substack. I'm glad to know about your podcast.