As the careful reader knows, I have developed a certain obsession with automated, online submissions, as used by contemporary literary journals. While I understand their utility, I am still haunted by the notion that, in practice, we lose something. Though it is still possible for editorial staff to use the content management systems to deliver more detailed messages, it is so much easier to simply click “reject” and automatically send some formulaic language to the writer.

No one liked receiving those old letters, with the notes describing the many flaws and deficiencies of our submitted works, but we learned something from them. I don’t get a damn thing from an email that contains the same language as everyone else received.

And of course, the editorial staff can still choose to offer a more detailed critique with their rejections. But how many really do? And how many really do compared to when they had to print out a letter with your name on it and containing the names of one or more of your poems? A letter truly feels more personal, which is what drives editorial staff to write critiques – even if just a hand-written scrawls across and otherwise formulaic letter. But this new method, for all its efficiency, is too detached to encourage that.

The reason I am bringing this up again is simply because I ran into this little article online — http://www.pw.org/content/new_treefree_submission_services – a list and a brief history of some online submission systems. Of those listed, I know that I have dealt with submishmash, though I’m not sure about the others.

Anybody want to disagree with my opinion on these systems?