A Market I Intend To Avoid Right Now

A Market I Intend To Avoid Right Now

Many writers have lists of markets that they either refuse to send to or only send stories to last for a variety of reasons, and I know I’m not alone in putting some markets on my NO NOT SEND list due to the attitudes of the editors or publishers. I now get to add Flash Fiction Online to that list.

Bart Leib of Crossed Genres posted on their blog that Flash Fiction Online rejected an ad because they “don’t accept sexually themed ads.” That is fine, as far as it goes, but if you click over to the post in question, you’ll see the ad, and you may agree with me that the ad image is not sexually themed. The sexually themed part of it is the text, which announces that Crossed Genres is looking for more LGBTQ stories, articles, and art.

When looking for more in-depth clarification on this issue the editor of Flash Fiction Online revealed some really, really problematic views about LGBTQ people and marriage rights. He also revealed some attitudes about sex, society and culture that I don’t agree with. But the reason I intend to keep this market off my submission list is the stance on gay rights.

Perhaps it’s completely silly of me to decide on a market because of the personality and views of the editor. But something about that post and that email truly struck me at the core. My worldview and an essential part of my personhood are so opposed to this person’s attitude that I don’t feel that my stories would connect, and I don’t want to associate myself or my fiction with the magazine. That’s a choice I’m making.

Just to ward off the inevitable railing from the usual suspects, I am not calling for a boycott or for Flash fiction Online to be burned to the virtual ground. I’m making a personal choice here and I’m voicing that choice publicly. What you choose to feel or do with the information I’ve presented is your own business.

8 thoughts on “A Market I Intend To Avoid Right Now

  1. As I said at another place today, Mr. Freivald may call himself a prude, but down around these parts we’d call him a bigot. Same ole same ole crap in his email rant. Thanks to Bart for taking the risk and revealing the truth!

  2. Howdy! I’m collecting commentary here, and am linking to this (if you want me to remove your link, just respond to this comment and tell me so).

  3. Huh. When I first saw that picture, I thought it was both beautiful AND creepy – because I can’t tell if the prone woman, on whose back the other woman’s elbows rest, is sleeping or dead (though I’d wake up and smack anyone who rested on my back like that UNLESS I were dead). Sexual though? No. And I don’t get out a lot, so if I feel like it, I can read a sexual subtext almost anywhere…

  4. It’s the pedophile thing that got me the most wound up about it. I addressed it here the other night http://mbranesf.livejournal.com/6708.html but did so somewhat indirectly since we were still debating within the Outer Alliance whether or not we would respond at all. I think everyone who has responded so far has done so in a sane way. Thanks for the good post here, Tempest.

  5. His logic is incredibly convoluted and smacks of the “if I use enough big words and concepts no-one will notice that it’s just the same ole bigotry” song and dance.

    His views also will alienate people who don’t hold these paleo-conversative views. As if gay folk don’t read flash fiction.

  6. He *makes* the pedophile comparison, weasels out by saying it was an “an extreme example” and he didn’t really mean it?

    Guess who just joined the professionally “dead to me” list?

Comments are closed.