Tuesday, July 8, 2008


Came across this on Duotrope this morning and I felt compelled to check it out. There has been a bit of debate (that I've noticed) in recent months in regards to whether or not an MFA makes a writer any more likely to be published than a non-MFA writer. Literary Rejections on Display, for example, brought the issue to a head a few months back.

MFA/MFYOU Journal seeks to put the two categories of writers side by side, much as the editors - a married couple in Fairbanks Alaska, wife with an MFA, husband without - are. Each has their own personal blog to boot,and as I'm always looking for new ways to procrastinate (and new emerging author's to spy on), I enjoyed
Ashley's very much. She is an editor for Permafrost and in the post I read, she frankly discusses the fine line between acceptance and rejection.


Speak Coffee said...

Although you have to wonder if this kind of semi-related exposure (the website study) will skew the results of their study -- not that it's overly scientific to begin with. But it could be possible. Then again you'd assume that it would benefit the both equally, but it still would make it less "realistic" as people like me don't (yet) have a gimmick. -- although I'm about to launch a website ;)

Mella said...

And of course, I suppose the same could be said about virtually every literary magazine, online or not. Most publish a variety of MFA's or non-MFA's. It's the quality of writing (or the mood of an editor on any given day) that gets a story published, not a degree or lack thereof.