Most advice about submitting short stories to literary magazines focuses on logistics: where to find submission calls, how to format a manuscript, what to include in a cover letter. That information is useful, and you can find it in ten minutes with a search engine. What you can't easily find is the thing that determines whether your story gets published: an understanding of how editors read.

Kelly Luce knows this better than most. She spent over a decade as editor-in-chief of Electric Literature's The Commuter, and before that, she worked as an editorial assistant for the O. Henry Prize Anthology, a role that required reading an incredible amount of short stories published in American literary magazines across two full calendar years. Thousands of stories. Hundreds of literary journals. She also earned her MFA from the Michener Center for Writers at UT Austin, where she served as editor-in-chief of Bat City Review. Before any of that, she studied cognitive science at Northwestern, running experiments on music, emotion, and memory. In a Los Angeles Review of Books interview, she described the relationship between those two disciplines bluntly: "Science and writing are both ways to get to truth; I just feel like I can get there faster with fiction." That double training, the scientist's rigor and the fiction writer's intuition, shapes how she reads from the editor's chair. And the core insight she returns to again and again is this: the distance between a rejection and an acceptance is rarely about talent. It's about a set of craft decisions that experienced writers learn to make and emerging writers often don't realize they're failing to make.

This is a guide to those decisions. Not the administrative side of submissions (Submittable tutorials, simultaneous submission etiquette, response time expectations) but the craft side: the specific qualities that make an editor stop skimming and start reading with real attention.

The First Paragraph Problem

Editors read differently than workshop peers. In a workshop, your readers have committed to finishing your story. They'll push through a slow opening because the social contract of the workshop demands it. An editor reading from a submissions queue has made no such commitment. They're reading dozens of stories in a sitting, sometimes hundreds in a week, and the first paragraph of each one is an audition.

This doesn't mean your opening needs to be flashy. It means your opening needs to be specific.

Consider the first line of Amy Hempel's "In the Cemetery Where Al Jolson Is Buried": "Tell me things I won't mind forgetting." There's no explosion, no dramatic hook in the conventional sense. But the sentence is doing three things at once: establishing a voice (direct, unsentimental, intimate), raising a question (why would someone want to forget?), and creating a relationship between two characters without naming either one. An editor encountering this sentence in a submissions queue would keep reading, not because it's shocking but because it's controlled. Every word is pulling weight.

Now compare that to the kind of opening that fills most submissions queues: "Sarah stared out the window at the rain, thinking about how much her life had changed since that summer." The sentence isn't wrong, exactly. But it's inert. "Stared out the window" is a stock gesture. "Thinking about how much her life had changed" tells us a character is reflecting without giving us anything to reflect on. "That summer" gestures toward backstory without earning the reader's curiosity about it. An editor who's read fifteen stories that morning has seen some version of this opening in at least five of them.

The fix isn't always dramatic. Sometimes it's a matter of replacing the general with the particular. What's outside that window? Not "rain" but something this specific character would notice in this specific moment. What changed? Don't tell us that things changed; show us one concrete detail from the current moment that carries the residue of whatever happened. The opening paragraph's job is to teach the reader how to read your story. It establishes the rules of your fictional world: how close we are to the narrator's consciousness, how much the prose will ask us to infer, what kind of attention the story rewards.

A Diagnostic for Your Opening

Pull up the first paragraph of any story you're about to submit. Read it as if you know nothing about the story, the characters, or the world. Then ask yourself three questions. First: does this paragraph contain at least one image or detail that could only exist in this particular story? If you could transplant the opening into a different narrative without changing a word, it's too generic. Second: is there a sentence in this paragraph whose syntax or rhythm surprises you, even a little? Flat, predictable sentence construction signals to an editor that the prose ahead will also be flat and predictable. Third: does the paragraph create a question the reader needs answered, even if that question is small? Not a cliffhanger. Not a mystery. Just an unanswered thing that pulls the eye to the next paragraph. If the answer to all three questions is no, your story may be strong, but your opening isn't doing it justice.

Voice as a Submission Strategy

When editors talk about what makes a story stand out in the queue, "voice" comes up more than any other quality. Not plot. Not concept. Voice. And yet voice is one of the least understood elements of fiction because it gets confused with style, with tone, with personality. Voice is all of those things and none of them. Voice is the specific way a piece of prose processes the world.

George Saunders doesn't sound like anyone else, and his voice isn't just a matter of humor or satire. It's a matter of how his sentences think. In "Tenth of December," a boy lost in the snow doesn't experience cold the way most fiction renders cold. Instead, Saunders filters the experience through the boy's fantasy life, his internal vocabulary of invented creatures and heroic narratives, so that the physical danger of hypothermia arrives tangled up with the boy's imaginative response to it. The voice makes us experience the cold differently because the consciousness processing that cold is irreplaceable.

Lorrie Moore does something related but structurally opposite. Her narrators often hold the world at arm's length through wit, and the voice's power comes from the moments when that wit fails, when the joke doesn't quite land and the pain underneath it becomes visible. In "People Like That Are the Only People Here," the narrator's attempts to process her infant's cancer diagnosis through irony and literary self-awareness create a voice that's simultaneously funny and devastating. The humor isn't deflection. It's the sound of a specific mind trying and failing to contain an uncontainable experience.

What both of these writers demonstrate is that voice isn't decoration applied to content. Voice is the content. An editor reads for voice because voice is the surest indicator that the writer behind the story has something no other writer can offer. You can teach someone to fix a plot hole or tighten a scene transition. You can't teach someone to think like George Saunders or Lorrie Moore. You can only help them find the version of that irreplaceability that already exists in their own work.

That phrase, "ethereal jelly-plane of Ideas," is funny, but the principle behind it is serious and directly relevant to submissions. Editors lose interest in stories where characters think and feel in abstraction, where emotional experience is rendered as floating consciousness rather than lived, physical sensation. Voice lives in the body. It lives in how a character notices the world through specific sensory details, how their particular nervous system processes a room, a conversation, a loss. When Luce talks about wanting characters to inhabit their bodies, she's describing the same quality that makes a voice feel irreplaceable on the page.

For writers preparing to submit, the practical implication is this: before you spend another hour polishing your plot or rethinking your ending, read your story aloud and listen for the moments where the voice flattens into something generic. Those are the moments where an editor's attention will drift. A slightly imperfect plot told in a mesmerizing voice will always outperform a perfectly structured story told in a voice that could belong to anyone.

The Middle of the Story Is Where Most Submissions Die

Strong openings are more common than most writers think. Ask any editor who has spent years reading from a submissions queue and they'll confirm: plenty of stories arrive with first paragraphs that earn the next page. The problem comes in the middle, usually around the second or third scene, where many stories lose their nerve.

What does losing nerve look like in practice? It looks like a story that opened with a scene of sharp, immediate experience and then retreats into summary. It looks like a narrator who was showing us something in the first two pages and starts telling us about it on page three. It looks like the introduction of a subplot or secondary character that dilutes the pressure the opening created. Editors call this "the sag," and it's the most common reason a story that starts well ends up in the rejection pile.

Luce carries with her a piece of advice from her Tin House workshop that speaks directly to this problem: resist the urge to rush through a story's big emotional moments. You can make a reader feel something by lingering in an uncomfortable place, just noticing. Many writers do the opposite. They build toward a charged scene and then sprint through it, summarizing the very moment the story has been earning. The sag often happens because a writer, having created genuine tension, flinches away from it instead of staying inside the discomfort long enough to let it do its work.

Deborah Eisenberg's stories are instructive here because they almost never sag, despite their length and complexity. In "Some Other, Better Otto," the story moves between time periods, introduces a large cast of family members, and addresses themes of guilt, mental illness, and romantic disappointment, yet the narrative pressure never drops. That's because Eisenberg controls information with extraordinary precision. Every scene, no matter how digressive it appears, is withholding something the reader wants to know, and the story's middle sections create new questions faster than they answer existing ones. The reader is never in a position to feel satisfied, to think, "I understand what's happening here, so I can relax." That low-grade tension is what keeps an editor reading past page five.

Denis Johnson's "Emergency" works differently but achieves the same result. The story's middle section is a series of increasingly surreal events (a stabbing victim in an ER, a drive through a snowstorm, a field of baby rabbits), and the conventional expectation would be for these events to build toward a climax. Instead, they accumulate sideways, each event stranger than the last, creating a feeling of drift that perfectly mirrors the narrator's drugged consciousness. The story's middle works because the apparent randomness is in fact a form of escalation. The reader keeps going not because they need to find out what happens but because the experience of being inside this narrator's perception is itself compelling.

The lesson for submissions is specific: your story's middle needs its own engine. The opening's engine (curiosity, disorientation, the appeal of a strong voice) will carry a reader for two or three pages, but then it runs out of fuel. If the middle of your story is powered only by the momentum of the opening, an editor will feel it stall. Find the question, the tension, the formal surprise that belongs specifically to your story's middle section, and make sure it's doing work that the opening couldn't have done.

Endings That Earn Their Weight

A good ending doesn't resolve a story. This might be the most counterintuitive principle in all of short fiction craft, and it contradicts almost everything you'll hear in introductory discussions. Resolution belongs to genre fiction, where the reader's satisfaction depends on seeing loose ends tied. Literary short fiction operates on a different contract. The reader's satisfaction comes from feeling that the story has arrived somewhere inevitable, even if (especially if) that somewhere is a place the reader didn't predict.

Kelly Luce has been characteristically direct about this. When readers tell her they finished one of her stories and weren't sure what happened at the end, she doesn't apologize. "I like to leave a space for the reader," she told Electric Literature. "Reading, like listening to music, should be an active, creative experience. Not a passive one." She's equally blunt about structure that tries too hard to be neat. "Forced elegance feels weird," she said in the Los Angeles Review of Books. "I don't want my novel to be prom. I want it to be a messy, ecstatic dance party in a barn." That sensibility, the preference for earned messiness over artificial polish, is exactly what she brings to the editorial chair. An ending that wraps every thread into a bow often signals to an editor that the writer doesn't trust the story's own intelligence.

Look at the ending of Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard to Find." The grandmother reaches out and touches the Misfit, calling him one of her children. It's a gesture that's been set up across the entire story through the grandmother's vanity, her self-deception, her reflexive performance of propriety, and yet when the moment arrives, it feels simultaneously earned and shocking. The grandmother is, for perhaps the first time in the story, acting from something other than self-interest. And the Misfit's response (recoiling, shooting her) tells us everything we need to know about the distance between grace and the world's capacity to receive it. O'Connor doesn't explain the ending. She doesn't need to. The image does the work.

Compare that to the kind of ending that dominates the submissions queue: a final paragraph that restates the story's emotional theme, that tells the reader what to feel, that wraps the experience in a neat summary. She realized, standing there, that nothing would ever be the same. That sentence has probably appeared in some form in a million workshop stories. It's the ending equivalent of the generic opening: technically adequate, emotionally empty.

The best endings do one of two things. Either they introduce a final image or detail that reframes everything that came before (the way O'Connor's grandmother reframes the entire story with a single gesture) or they withhold something, leaving the reader in a state of charged incompletion. Joy Williams is a master of the second type. Her story "Taking Care" ends with a minister giving his granddaughter a bath, an image of such domestic simplicity that it seems to have nothing to do with the grief, illness, and spiritual doubt that drove the preceding pages. But that disconnect is the point. The ending doesn't resolve the minister's suffering; it simply places it beside an act of ordinary love and lets the reader feel the weight of both.

Revision Exercise: The Final Image Test

Take the last paragraph of your story and delete it. Read the story again, ending one paragraph earlier. Is the story worse? If it's roughly the same, or even slightly better, your original ending was probably unnecessary. Many stories are one paragraph too long because the writer, having felt the story arrive at its natural conclusion, adds one more beat of explanation or reflection out of anxiety that the reader won't understand. Trust your reader. Trust the images you've built. If the story has done its work, the ending doesn't need to explain what that work was.

What Editors Mean When They Say "Not Right for Us"

Every writer who has submitted to literary magazines has received the standard rejection: Thank you for sending us your work. Unfortunately, this piece is not right for us at this time. The phrasing is so universal that it's become a kind of dark joke among writers, but the sentence is more honest than it appears.

"Not right for us" genuinely describes why most stories are rejected. Not because they're bad, but because they don't fit the specific aesthetic, tonal, or thematic priorities of a particular editorial team at a particular moment. Every literary magazine has a personality, whether or not it articulates that personality in its submission guidelines. The Paris Review under different editors has published radically different kinds of fiction, not because the quality threshold changed but because the sensibility at the top of the masthead changed. Tin House published work that Ploughshares wouldn't have taken, and vice versa, and both were excellent magazines.

This is why the submission process rewards writers who read the magazines they're submitting to. Not skim, not glance at a table of contents, but sit down and read three or four recent issues closely enough to understand the sensibility behind the editorial choices. Kelly Luce has described how, during her years editing The Commuter, the stories she said yes to fastest were the ones that felt like their authors understood what the magazine was trying to do. Not stories that imitated previous selections, but stories that operated within a recognizable aesthetic neighborhood.

Practically, this means that submitting to thirty magazines simultaneously with the same story is almost always less effective than submitting to eight magazines you've read cover to cover, with a cover letter that demonstrates (briefly, in one sentence) why you believe this particular story belongs in this particular magazine. Editors can tell the difference between a targeted submission and a mass mailing. The former signals professionalism and care. The latter signals desperation, even when the story itself is strong.

The Revision You're Not Doing

Most writers revise for clarity, for grammar, for sentence-level polish. These are necessary revisions, but they're surface-level. The revision that separates publishable stories from almost-publishable stories happens at a deeper layer: the revision for pressure.

Luce is unusually candid about what this looks like in practice. "People hate revision," she told the Los Angeles Review of Books, "but I think it's the most fun part of writing other than the epiphanies." She reads her work aloud to catch rhythmic problems, and she keeps a running list of her own verbal crutches, words she knows she overuses and must search every manuscript for: "then," "after all," "though," "seems," "almost," "somehow," "slightly," "bright." That kind of self-awareness is rare. Most writers don't know their own tics well enough to name them, which means those tics survive draft after draft, flattening the prose in ways the writer can't see. Building your own list is one of the most practical things you can do before submitting a story anywhere.

But the deeper revision, the one most writers skip, is the revision for pressure. Pressure, in this context, means the sense that every element of the story is pushing toward the same emotional or thematic center. A story with pressure feels inevitable, as if no scene could be removed or rearranged without the whole thing collapsing. A story without pressure may contain beautiful sentences, well-drawn characters, and interesting events that nonetheless feel loosely assembled, as if the parts are sitting next to each other rather than exerting force on each other.

Experienced editors describe being able to feel the difference between a pressurized story and an unpressurized one within the first two pages. It isn't about quality in the conventional sense. Both kinds of stories can be well-written. But the pressurized story creates a feeling of necessity: this sentence had to follow that sentence, this scene had to exist because the previous scene demanded it. The unpressurized story feels like a series of competent choices rather than a series of inevitable ones.

Alice Munro's work demonstrates this quality as well as anyone's. In "The Bear Came Over the Mountain," every detail about Fiona's early life, her flirtatiousness, her privilege, her casual cruelty, exerts pressure on the story's central situation (her descent into dementia and her husband's guilt). Nothing is decorative. The flashbacks to their early marriage aren't backstory in the conventional sense; they're part of the story's argument about what it means to love someone you've also failed. Remove any one of those retrospective passages and the story's final scenes lose a layer of meaning.

To revise for pressure, go through your story scene by scene and ask: what is this scene pushing toward? If the answer is vague ("character development" or "atmosphere"), the scene may need to be cut or reimagined. Every scene in a short story should be pushing toward the story's emotional center, even when the scene appears to be about something else entirely. If a scene exists only to convey information the reader needs, find a way to convey that information inside a scene that's also doing emotional or thematic work. Short fiction doesn't have room for scenes that serve only one purpose.

Building a Submission Practice That Works

The writers who build publication records are not necessarily the most talented writers in any given room. They're the writers who treat submission as a practice, with the same discipline and regularity they bring to writing itself. This means keeping stories in circulation. It means tracking where you've submitted and what you've heard back. It means reading rejection not as judgment but as information, and using that information to make better decisions about where to send your work next.

Simultaneous submission (sending the same story to multiple magazines at the same time) is standard practice at most literary magazines, and you should take advantage of it. The exception is a small number of magazines that explicitly prohibit simultaneous submissions in their guidelines; respect those guidelines if you choose to submit to those venues. For everyone else, having a story under consideration at five to eight carefully chosen magazines at any given time is reasonable and professional.

Keep a simple spreadsheet. Date sent, magazine name, story title, date of response, outcome. Over time, this record becomes useful not just logistically but analytically. You'll start to see patterns: which magazines respond quickly, which ones hold stories for months, which ones send personalized rejections (a good sign, even when the answer is no). Personalized rejections, in particular, are worth paying attention to. If an editor takes the time to say something specific about your work, even in a rejection, it means your story came close. Submit to that magazine again.

One of the most valuable things a writer can do is work with someone who understands the editorial side of this process. Not just a fellow writer who can give you craft feedback, but someone who has sat in an editor's chair, who has read from the other side of the submissions queue, and who can tell you exactly where your story would have lost an editor's attention and why. That's the difference between revising in the dark and revising with a map.

Luce herself knows what persistence looks like from the writer's side of the desk. Her story "Rooey," which she wrote over eight years in response to the deaths of people close to her, was rejected fifty-three times before Minna Proctor at The Literary Review pulled it from the slush pile and published it. It went on to become the story readers most often name as their favorite from her debut collection. Fifty-three rejections. For a story that worked. That number should be liberating for any writer who has ever mistaken a rejection for a verdict. It wasn't that the story was bad for fifty-three magazines and suddenly good for the fifty-fourth. It was that the fifty-fourth editor's sensibility happened to meet the story where it lived.

That line captures something essential about what makes the work worth doing, even when the rejections pile up. Writing, for Luce, is an act of discovery. And the submission process, when you approach it with the same seriousness you bring to the writing itself, becomes part of that discovery: learning where your work fits, which editors respond to your sensibility, and how to revise not just for quality but for the specific reader you're trying to reach.

WritingWorkshops.com is an independent, artist-run creative writing school and the official education partner of Electric Literature. Since 2016, we've helped writers strengthen their voice, develop a greater understanding of craft, and forge a path to publication.