Sunday, May 15, 2005
Flocks of pontificating birds
I know quite a few editors despise (or at least mildly disdain) simultaneous submissions. Personally, I don't have an issue with them at all, as I understand the desire to get your work out there, and know how long it can take to get your writing to the poetry "marketplace" even in the best circumstances. Also, the Eleventh Muse is set up so I can respond pretty fast most of the time, and as full editor I have yet to lose a poem I wanted (or even was still considering taking) to another publication.
Now this upcoming little rant here is not directed at conscientious editors like C. Dale, who does an amazing job sifting through tons of submissions, many more than I get, and responding in good time, to judge by Jeffery's response time database (which I just finished adding my own data to earlier this week, by the way). He (C. Dale, not Jeffery) has made his dislike of simultaneous submissions known, but the New England Review still accepts them (grudgingly, I guess), and I think that's a fine stance to have.
BUT
I say that if you edit a magazine that doesn't accept simultaneous submissions, and your average response time runs somewhere near or upward of 20 weeks, you've ceded the right to have that particular guideline followed. I'm looking at the following journals (just off the top of my head): The Hudson Review, The North American Review, and Fine Madness. It's one of poetry's common-knowledge "secrets" that many (if not a majority of) people aren't abiding by simultaneous submission guidelines anyway, but if you think I'm willingly going to kill five of my poems for five months to a year just for the maybe 1% chance that you'll accept one of them, you're nuts. I'll either send the poems somewhere else or ignore the guideline. I'm quite willing to abide by a no-simultaneous-submissions policy for an outlet that responds fast, but if you respond fast, I wonder why you need it in the first place. It really seems to me there are better ways of keeping a cap on the number of submissions, which is what most hoop-style guidelines are for anyway.
Next editorial pontification: e-mail versus snail-mail submissions.
Now this upcoming little rant here is not directed at conscientious editors like C. Dale, who does an amazing job sifting through tons of submissions, many more than I get, and responding in good time, to judge by Jeffery's response time database (which I just finished adding my own data to earlier this week, by the way). He (C. Dale, not Jeffery) has made his dislike of simultaneous submissions known, but the New England Review still accepts them (grudgingly, I guess), and I think that's a fine stance to have.
BUT
I say that if you edit a magazine that doesn't accept simultaneous submissions, and your average response time runs somewhere near or upward of 20 weeks, you've ceded the right to have that particular guideline followed. I'm looking at the following journals (just off the top of my head): The Hudson Review, The North American Review, and Fine Madness. It's one of poetry's common-knowledge "secrets" that many (if not a majority of) people aren't abiding by simultaneous submission guidelines anyway, but if you think I'm willingly going to kill five of my poems for five months to a year just for the maybe 1% chance that you'll accept one of them, you're nuts. I'll either send the poems somewhere else or ignore the guideline. I'm quite willing to abide by a no-simultaneous-submissions policy for an outlet that responds fast, but if you respond fast, I wonder why you need it in the first place. It really seems to me there are better ways of keeping a cap on the number of submissions, which is what most hoop-style guidelines are for anyway.
Next editorial pontification: e-mail versus snail-mail submissions.
Comments:
<< Home
As you noted, I despise them (common knowledge) but we take them (as long as you say so in a cover letter) because we know so many people will do them anyway. I HATE them. I am convinced it is part of the reason we get 36,000+ submissions. And I guess I also hate them because I am not sure what they accomplish. I have never sim submitted my poems, and I feel I am doing okay in terms of publishing. I just always keep my work out. That is all it takes. I guess if you have some goal of publishing 10 or 20 or 30 poems, then sim subbing makes sense. But my goals as a poet have never been quantity but quality. And all the sim subbing in the world aint gonna help that. Anyway, I also understand your annoyance at mags that take forever. NER takes longer than it used to. We used to have most responses back within 4 weeks. Now we just get too many subs to do that.
C. Dale, I'm glad you stopped by. I was kind of hoping you would so we could get your alternate take on it.
I agree with you about quality versus quantity, and obviously you are doing pretty well in terms of publishing. However, once I have something that I feel is quality, I do want to get exposure for it in a reasonable amount of time. If I submit it to only one place, even a place generally known for speedy response, there are so many things that can go wrong and cause a delay. Case in point: I'd wanted to submit to Gulf Coast for some time, and Jeffery's database listed a 6-7 week response time for them (albeit with a limited sample size), so I submitted work. Sadly, it turns out their typical response time is much slower. If I had only sent the work to them, I would accidentally have stalled it much longer than I intended.
After submitting to a first-choice place, I usually submit to a couple other places of similar stature (usually waiting until a couple weeks after submitting to the original place so that place does have a first crack at it), and at that point treat my submission as most non-simultaneous submitters do: when one comes back, turn it around and send it out again. Why yes, I am somewhat OCD, why do you ask?
My acceptance rate is gradually starting to increase as my writing improves (and I'm way further along the curve than I was just a couple years ago). If it keeps going up, I may shift my stance on simultaneous submissions. Or I may shift if my journal starts getting bombarded with work. Personally, I think the too-many-people-submitting-not-enough-people-reading thing is the real problem. Simultaneous submission is just a symptom. :-)
I agree with you about quality versus quantity, and obviously you are doing pretty well in terms of publishing. However, once I have something that I feel is quality, I do want to get exposure for it in a reasonable amount of time. If I submit it to only one place, even a place generally known for speedy response, there are so many things that can go wrong and cause a delay. Case in point: I'd wanted to submit to Gulf Coast for some time, and Jeffery's database listed a 6-7 week response time for them (albeit with a limited sample size), so I submitted work. Sadly, it turns out their typical response time is much slower. If I had only sent the work to them, I would accidentally have stalled it much longer than I intended.
After submitting to a first-choice place, I usually submit to a couple other places of similar stature (usually waiting until a couple weeks after submitting to the original place so that place does have a first crack at it), and at that point treat my submission as most non-simultaneous submitters do: when one comes back, turn it around and send it out again. Why yes, I am somewhat OCD, why do you ask?
My acceptance rate is gradually starting to increase as my writing improves (and I'm way further along the curve than I was just a couple years ago). If it keeps going up, I may shift my stance on simultaneous submissions. Or I may shift if my journal starts getting bombarded with work. Personally, I think the too-many-people-submitting-not-enough-people-reading thing is the real problem. Simultaneous submission is just a symptom. :-)
Personally, I've only simsubbed by mistake, even to mags that indicate they'll permit it. For me, the alignment of poem and venue is a slow and agonizing one, and if I really want a poem to appear in a particular place, it's hard to imagine it anywhere else until they reject me. I mean, reject IT.
Now, I'm not an editor, but I think the culprit in time-to-print is a financial one. Volumes are limited in size and frequency, and wind up with a backlog (poems or poets already lined up for the next issue before the current one is out). I know this happens in my reading series; I have three times as many poets interested in reading than I have slots in the next year. I don't see how sim-subbing shortens the leadtime, it just gives you more tickets in that slow-moving lottery.
Now, I'm not an editor, but I think the culprit in time-to-print is a financial one. Volumes are limited in size and frequency, and wind up with a backlog (poems or poets already lined up for the next issue before the current one is out). I know this happens in my reading series; I have three times as many poets interested in reading than I have slots in the next year. I don't see how sim-subbing shortens the leadtime, it just gives you more tickets in that slow-moving lottery.
David:
Simultaneous submission wouldn't cut the lead time if we were always accepted or always rejected, and of course it doesn't cut the lead time for any individual place. However, having three tickets instead of one will indeed cut the average turnaround time over the long haul for those of us who live in the netherworld of a few acceptances and a bunch of rejections.
Steve
Simultaneous submission wouldn't cut the lead time if we were always accepted or always rejected, and of course it doesn't cut the lead time for any individual place. However, having three tickets instead of one will indeed cut the average turnaround time over the long haul for those of us who live in the netherworld of a few acceptances and a bunch of rejections.
Steve
I've never simultaneously submitted, and I don't feel the need to. Once I get a poem together into a form that I see as finished, I just send it out -- to the journals I find myself reading on a regular basis like GutCult, Diagram, Typo, etc.. What is this urge to get in print? If you want to share your work instantly, then get a blog, or submit to the online sites (which in my experience have very fast responses -- less than two months, mostly.)
But obsessing over getting into print seems to me to be a very negative thing for one's work. Write, submit, and let it go, is my feeling -- worrying about how to game the "system" seems to me both an insult to the various editors involved and a hinderance to producing new poetry.
(I say this as someone who once totally obsessed over getting into print with really crummy work -- my work got good somewhere around the time I stopped.)
-- Simon
But obsessing over getting into print seems to me to be a very negative thing for one's work. Write, submit, and let it go, is my feeling -- worrying about how to game the "system" seems to me both an insult to the various editors involved and a hinderance to producing new poetry.
(I say this as someone who once totally obsessed over getting into print with really crummy work -- my work got good somewhere around the time I stopped.)
-- Simon
Simon:
I think there's a difference between wanting to rush inferior work into print, which is certainly a detriment to poetry both on the individual and overall levels, and expecting a timely response when you finally send out good work.
I agree that finding the places that match up with what you do and that respond quickly is the best approach. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to let other places off the hook, especially places that I really like but that take too long to get back (Hudson Review, Gulf Coast, Smartish Pace, based on my recent submissions).
Post a Comment
I think there's a difference between wanting to rush inferior work into print, which is certainly a detriment to poetry both on the individual and overall levels, and expecting a timely response when you finally send out good work.
I agree that finding the places that match up with what you do and that respond quickly is the best approach. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to let other places off the hook, especially places that I really like but that take too long to get back (Hudson Review, Gulf Coast, Smartish Pace, based on my recent submissions).
<< Home
