Hi folks. I'm still kicking, albeit slowly, as evidenced by the flurry of Tough action this weekend. It's become clear that by myself, I can't sustain, with the proper editing, a one story per week pace. Others can, I can't, and that's simply the way it is. Say thanks for the yeoman's work, no, the incredible work of Tim Hennessy, who read everything that came in over the last couple months when I was out of commission, and Rider was out of commission because he was taking care of me first the way a good son should. I am still having difficulty concentrating on reading and editing; I've kept buying books at the same rate I usually read them, though, and the intimidating stack tells me I have a long way to go.
So we're going on a submissions hiatus. I have about a hundred stories left to go through and five to edit, not counting reviews, of which there are only a couple pending. Of those hundred, I'd guess we'll accept fewer than ten, which still puts us in a good place. Ideally I'd like to run three months ahead, but I'm just looking to get back into reading shape, so we're on submissions hiatus until further notice.
In the comments, I wonder if you'd share your opinion on editorial taste-making. Is it better to have one person's editorial vision guiding things (Tough), a small team of three or four ( a la Shotgun Honey), or a more traditional litmag (let's say Ploughshares, to name one I've admired for years), which runs with an editorial board and a fairly large team of volunteers or interns? I helped run Night Train (now being squatted, thanks a lot, shell company X ) all three ways at one time or another and thought I had developed a preference for the single editorial voice, but in the wake of these last couple months, I'm no longer sure. Carry on, and check Twitter @Tough_Crime for further updates.
