Behind the Mission: How After Dinner Conversation Chooses Stories That Spark Debate
In a recent conversation with Janelle Drumwright of Lit Mag Lounge, Kolby Granville, founder and editor-in-chief of After Dinner Conversation, offered a clear, no-nonsense look at what makes a submission right for his literary magazine — and what doesn’t.
A Precise Editorial Focus
Granville describes After Dinner Conversation as a magazine with a very specific niche: short narrative scenarios that present ethical questions and force readers to make real decisions. These aren’t plot-driven tales with obvious answers. Instead, they are crafted to open up conversations where reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Examples shared include dilemmas like whether cheating still counts if everyone’s doing it, or whether good ideas can come from morally repugnant sources.
The Gray Zone Matters
A key insight from the interview is that not all ethical questions are equally valuable for this publication. Granville emphasized that stories where the moral outcome is obvious don’t perform well for discussion. A terminally suffering dog — where most people agree euthanasia is the humane choice — doesn’t create the extended debate After Dinner Conversation seeks. Instead, the magazine prioritizes moral ambiguity.
Each published story comes with five discussion questions designed to guide readers deeper into interpretation and reflection. These prompts are part of the editorial DNA of the journal and speak to its core mission: to turn fiction into philosophical dialogue.
What Doesn’t Work — And Why
After seven years of editorial experience, Granville and his team have seen repetition in certain types of stories — to the point they now avoid them. These include:
Time-travel plots aimed at altering the future
Classic “many versus one” dilemmas (e.g., sacrificing one to save many)
Standard medical right-to-die narratives
Tales centered on meeting God
Granville isn’t dismissing these outright; he’s saying they’ve been done so often that finding fresh, thought-provoking angles is exceedingly rare.
Where Stories Should Begin
One common weakness in submissions, Granville explained, is a misplaced starting point. Writers often spend pages world-building before the real conflict appears. He’s happy to work with authors on restarting a story where the first decision is about to be made. That shift alone can tighten the narrative and highlight the ethical thrust of the piece.
For After Dinner Conversation, the first 500–1,000 words should quickly show what the story’s dilemma is. If a reader can’t identify the central problem early on, the submission isn’t doing its job.
The Editorial Process Explained
Granville also walked through how submissions are evaluated:
The magazine receives about 200 submissions per month.
Two readers score each piece on writing quality and thematic fit.
If the scores favor publication, Granville reads the top candidates.
Around 5–6 stories make it into each issue.
This transparent description gives prospective writers a realistic sense of both the workload and the editorial expectations of the magazine.
Practical Tips for Writers
A few actionable takeaways from Kolby’s interview:
Don’t include a cover letter. The editorial team prefers to judge stories on their own merits.
Start where the dilemma begins. Premise before plot.
Keep endings active, not decorative. Resolving with inward reflection or a symbolic paragraph doesn’t usually satisfy the magazine’s criteria.
Know where you fit. Reading the journal deeply before submitting greatly improves a writer’s chance of matching its editorial taste.
Kolby Granville’s interview with Lit Mag Lounge isn’t just a peek at After Dinner Conversation’s editorial desk. It’s a guidebook on how to think about stories that don’t just entertain — they engage.
