Well hello, friends! Welcome to our Spring 2017 edition.
It was a hard decision to not publish the Winter 2017 edition (and only the second time in 16 years we skipped an edition), but I was in the middle of an extremely busy time. Rather than rush through the process of putting Copperfield together, we decided the best thing to do was to put the Winter edition aside. Since we had double the submissions to read for the Spring edition, we had some tough decisions to make. We consider ourselves fortunate at Copperfield that even after 16 years we continue to receive some of the best submissions from some of the finest historical writers out there, and we are definitely grateful to all the loyal readers and writers of historical fiction who have been along for the ride.
Since this Spring edition is being published in May, we also made the decision to publish twice in 2017. It didn’t make sense to us to put up a new edition in July when we had just put one up in May. So in 2017 The Copperfield Review will be published in May and October. Which brings me to my next point (yes, friends, I do have one…).
For 16 years, The Copperfield Review has been a quarterly journal, but we’re rethinking how we go about publishing. Between us, I can’t give Copperfield up. The thought crossed my mind once or twice, but it simply wouldn’t do. This journal has been part of my life for too long, and I get so much out of it, and I hope you do too. Where else do you get such great historical short fiction and poetry? But working on quarterly editions has become cumbersome as my life circumstances have changed, mainly because we usually have over 100 submissions to read every quarter (sometimes more than that!). I’ve been thinking that rather than publishing in quarterly segments, we’ll publish a new piece whenever one comes in that catches our eye. This would make the turnaround faster for authors who won’t have to wait three months to hear about the status of their submissions, and we can examine submissions as they come in so we don’t have to read over 100 submissions at a time. It would also keep the website fresher for readers, who would have new stories or articles to check out more often throughout the year. I haven’t decided yay or nay yet, so let me know your thoughts at copperreview(at)aol(dot)com. Right now, we’re planning a second edition in October, but that could change depending on what we decide.
The Copperfield Review isn’t going anywhere, folks. We may just be fiddling with how it’s published. Running The Copperfield Review has been a great joy of mine, and I know it will continue to be for many more years.
Enjoy our Spring 2017 edition. Keep those great submissions coming in!