Editor Interview: House of Long Shadows

Gothic fiction, any genre

I admire the business models of both Short Story (the Substack magazine edited by Palisatrium) and Raconteur Press. Each has found a way of making a revenue-sharing model into a practical reality, and they've both influenced my own approach.

One difference is our strictly cooperative payment model—every contributor (including the editor/publisher) gets an equal share.
We're also intentional about being transparent and responsive in our dealings with contributors, which includes giving them a chance to view a preview of the issue and make sure their work is being presented to their satisfaction. We accept input, including bio updates, right up to the last minute; web publication makes this ridiculously easy, and it should be standard practice.

"Gothic" is not just a synonym for "horror." We receive many submissions that are horror but not Gothic horror, or dark fantasy but not Gothic fantasy.
Also, when we say multi-genre, we mean it. We'd love to see more secondary-world fantasy, more historical and contemporary science fiction, and more non-supernatural romance and mystery stories—but, again, only if there's something recognizably Gothic about them.

They include a statement about how they didn't use AI. Our AI policy is liberal, and we clearly state that there is no need for authors to disclose what tools they use (or don't use). Telling me you never touch the stuff is tantamount to telling me you didn't read the guidelines.
That said, this isn't grounds for rejection; it just makes me roll my eyes.

I'd prefer to see a brief cover letter including a third-person bio, with publications and personal information limited to what fits naturally in the bio.
I seldom take cover letters into account when evaluating submissions, but if I'm on the fence about a given story, an attractive publishing history might be a nudge in the author's favor.

I evaluate the submissions pile in two passes. On the first pass, I only read the first page or two. If the opening looks promising, I'll escalate the piece to the next round before reading any further. If it doesn't seem right for us, I'll usually check the end of the story to get a sense of what the author is working toward, then escalate or reject depending on what I find.

If a piece makes it to the second round, I read it through in its entirety exactly once and accept or reject based on that. When we publish something, our readers are encountering it for the first time—so it's important to me to make editorial decisions with fresh eyes, not based on what the story looks like after multiple readings.

The amount of editing we do varies from story to story. Some authors turn in very polished work, and we barely touch it. Others are great storytellers but their prose is rough, and we line edit freely. Regardless of how much or how little editing we do, we send a preview link a few days before publication so the author has a chance to view the edited version and give their feedback.
Occasionally we'll ask for content edits, such as fixing a continuity error. In those cases we always consult with the author ahead of time.

We're a very low-budget operation with virtually no overhead. All our income is from Substack subscriptions. On the (increasingly rare) occasions when a month's subscription revenues aren't enough to cover our minimum contributor payment, I make up the difference out of pocket.