Do the same as other professional editors and give the writer one page. You should be able to tell in that first page if the author can 1- write and 2- format per your guidelines. You can skim over the remainder of the story if the initial perusal deems a look-see but I don't see how you're obligated to slog through every page of every sub of every month. It's just not feasible. If it's obviously het, or child porn or otherwise unsuitalbe, just delete it and send an auto-rejection. There's no reason for FF to be burdened with unsuitable, unreadable subs than any other market. You're a pro, so treat your contriubutors the same way and expect the same adherence to standards that you use when subbing. YMMV.:)

*Hugs*

Mmm, now that's a serious possibility. (Although - if the writer won't read the guidelines they won't know to do a synposis...? Then we're back to the 'deleting unread' scenario.)

Well how about. \"In your cover letter please give a one line description of the story that demonstrates it has gay male content.\" ? People who don't can go itn thr 'maybe I'll look at it later when I'm bored and need a laugh' pile ;)

I don't think one line is enough. A two para synopsis will urge them to try harder, and thereby make them \"talk\" too much. And any het only, child porn should reveal itself.

LOL Love the idea of a boredom file. :D It is a fine line between annoying too many writers, and weeding out the dross.

I agree that a code word in the subject heading, clearly indicated in the submission guidelines, should do the trick. It won't eliminate every unsuitable submission - says the author who sent, not one, but two to you, *cough cough* - but at least it will eliminate the folks who don't even read the guidelines. However, I'd be wary about changing the code after each issue. That's getting a bit too refined and is likely to irritate authors who faithfully read your guidelines. By the way, congratulations on not being nit-picky about formatting. You'd be surprised (well, no, you probably wouldn't) at how many publications say things like, "In order to indicate italics, please use an underscore." And then the *next* publication will say, "In order to indicate italics, please use an asterisk."

There's unsuitable and unsuitable, Dusk. :) Some we read, scratch our heads over and then decide, perhaps reluctantly, that they're not quite right for us. I don't consider those to have wasted our time. The ones that do waste our time are heterosexual romances, stories with no hint of erotic or romance genre AT ALL (eg a political satire we got last time round) and stories that are so disgusting even these old hands nearly throw up. It's a small minority, but it goes on happening issue after issue.

The simplest and best way to deem suitability is to require a detailed (but hopefully not over-detailed!) synopsis. I've found that a synopsis is invaluable to deciding what is worth a closer look and what probably won't make it. If writers are serious enough to submit, they should be serious enough to write a synopsis. Occasionally I'll read a submission with no synopsis, but the vast majority of manuscripts sent without one are asked to please try again with the required materials.

*nods* I totally agree, especially with larger works. Granted, I'm not so crazy about writing them (and Lord knows I have trouble condensing a monster book into a short space), but I certainly do it when asked by the GLs.

But I don't know how to draw a pink elephant. :cry: