Editor Interview: Sein und Werden

Edgy and provocative

There are so many quirky, beautiful publications out there. I love Blood Pudding Press, 3:AM Magazine, The Cafe Irreal, Dog Horn Publishing, Black Coffee Press, Comma Press, Twisted Spoon Press, Serpent's Tail, Dedalus Press, Full of Crow, The Surreal Grotesque...

Henry Miller, Italo Calvino, Daniil Kharms, Antonin Artaud, J G Ballard, Djuna Barnes, James Ellroy, Marina Warner, Dawn Ades, Julia Kristeva, Violette Leduc, Anne Sexton, Andrew Vachss, Philip K Dick, Georges Batailles, Michel Faber...

Because every issue of Sein und Werden has a theme writers and artists are encouraged to come up with something new, rather than rummaging through the dregs of their unpublished work. Having a theme also promotes interpretative creativity as contributors translate the subject in diverse and often surprising ways.
We publish a lot of 'experimental' work which other publications might shy away from. By this I mean non-linear texts, uncertain characterisation, style over substance, non-formulaic stories and unusual narratives. I am also interested in snippets of work, drafts and essays on the creative process.
I see Sein und Werden as an ongoing project, rather than a series of individual issues of a magazine filled with individual contributions, which constantly mutates and evolves, hence the name (= Being and Becoming) and I often enlist the help of contributors to guest-edit, write reviews and compose e-books etc.

Read the guidelines, of course. Not only does it state the kind of submissions I'm after, it also states what I DON'T want. If you're stuck, there's a list of writers/artists I admire on there.
Read previous issues. They're all free on the web so you don't even have to buy a copy.
If the guidelines say 'do not send in the body of the email' please do not send in the body of the email.
I always welcome queries and suggestions if you're not sure whether your piece will fit.
At least start your submission email off with a greeting! Simply attaching your work without a/saying hi, b/telling me who you are and c/telling me what you are submitting is just bad manners and will usually result in me hitting delete.

Ooooh, okay.
Starting with the email - A greeting, a sentence to say what you are submitting, the title, volume, year of any previous publication the work appeared in and a brief paragraph about yourself (if you're likely to want a bio included, should I decide to publish your work, please write it in the 3rd person). No links to previously published work. No huge list of every single publication you've been in. I'm not interested. A brief bio should be enough.
The submission itself - attached as a word doc or rtf (paginated and with name and title as a heading on every page). TNR 11 or 12, single line breaks (the less formatting the better). I appreciate work sent in via a mac rather than a pc generally appears as helvetica. If you're including words that aren't necessarily in the dictionary, please do tell me so I don't assume it's a typo, though I will always try to check this. Please tab indents rather than pressing the space bar. If submitting artwork it should be saved under its title rather than 0001.jpg and possibly artists name.

There are many submitters who include their work in the body of the email.
Also, there are many poets who send more than 3 poems at a time.

It's not that important on the whole, but if the submitter mentions publications I particularly admire in their publishing credits, it's likely to make me sit up and take notice. It's interesting to know where the submitter is from, especially if it may mean a variance in US/UK spelling. Generally though, it doesn't matter if they've been published before, whether they live on a farm or a boat or how long they've been writing.
I offer all submitters the opportunity to have a bio included. Not everyone takes me up on it. They are generally just an opportunity for contributors to promote themselves and provide links to their sites. The bios I prefer are fun, tongue-in-cheek or adapted to suit that particular submission.
I definitely do not want to see a list of previous publication credits!

I can usually tell after the first couple of paragraphs whether a piece is going to be right or not, especially as style is more important to me than plot. Having said that, I won't rule out a more traditional plot-driven story just because it's more mainstream than Sein's usual fare. And though I may have a good feeling about a piece it doesn't mean I won't read it through to the end before coming to a decision.

As long as the piece is within the word limit it's pretty much a case of whether or not I like it.

My editing style has changed over the years. When Sein und Werden was both a web and print zine, it took a lot more organisational skill and time management (and patience!). Now that it is on line only, it is much easier. I tend to read in bulk now, rather than as and when I receive submissions. I use 'labels' in my email account to separate those I've replied to, and those I have yet to print out etc. When I have them all printed out I read them - in the bath, in bed, on the bus... and then I create a yes, a no, and a maybe pile. Most things end up on the maybe and wait for a second or third reading. I always try to acknowledge submissions because I know how frustrating the waiting can be, especially when you finally query a submission only to be told it was never received. I then look at the accepted pieces to see what might fit where. I do get a lot of enjoyment from piecing bits together, artwork and poetry for example, and like to look for connections between pieces. Sometimes I might solicit work in order to create better flow or to bring a digressive piece back in line with the theme.