Sunday, December 30, 2007
How Not to Be Seen
Haven't been posting much and have been quite happy about it, but I'm in a bit of a truculent mood, so here's a little calling-out.
Of course, for me to consider sending work to a journal, it has to publish work that I like. Duh. But that doesn't really narrow things down a whole lot for me, since I find work to enjoy in The Hudson Review and in New American Writing, or if you prefer, places that [Dana Gioia/Ron Silliman] would like and places that would give him an infarction. Blah blah blah, false dichotomy, blah. Beyond that, here are some screen-out factors I use to decide where I won't send work.
1. Doesn't accept simultaneous submissions, doesn't respond fast. This is my biggest "fuck you" factor, an incredibly pompous and dickish position to hold. If you won't "let" me send work elsewhere while you consider it, you can respond within 60 days on average. Venues this eliminates: The Hudson Review, American Poetry Review, The Antioch Review, etc. Way, way too many.
2. Lower tier journals that don't accept simultaneous submissions. Uh, seriously, do you think you're Poetry or The Threepenny Review or something? Especially egregious when they combine it with slow response time, but regardless, no-sim is a relic (witness how few e-zines have this requirement). Venues this eliminates: Pacific Review, Cider Press Review, etc.
3. Take an average of over 200 days to respond. This one contains several journals that make me really sad because I so like their content, including at least one co-edited by a fellow blogger/online friend (Jeffery, anything you guys can do to get your submission responses together?). Venues this eliminates: Many Mountains Moving, CutBank, Blackbird, etc.
4. Journals with no/paltry Web presence. This is 2008 (okay, almost 2008 as I write this). You can get an acceptable informational website for zero money and minimal expertise/time investment. Put your guidelines, general issue info, and contact information on there. Include an e-mail address for queries. You can put more, of course, but that will certainly do as a minimum. Venues this eliminates: The Canary (Is it still alive? I'd like to send work if it is), Terminus (they had a website when I sent work there, but it's vanished in the last month or so), Pinyon (lots of little university reviews fall in here because they have a "website" that totals one page with no valuable information).
5. Journals with asinine jump-through-these-hoops requirements. Places that make you send multiple copies of your poems or say you can't query even after a year without automatically withdrawing your poems. Venues this eliminates: Swink (honestly, their terrible response time and ridiculous guidelines were a primary impetus for this post), Forklift, Ohio, Hunger Mountain, etc.
6. Journals that copyright your poems in their own names. Oh HELL no. Do I really have to explain why this is garbage? Venues this eliminates: Free Lunch, I know there are other places that do this, maybe Prairie Schooner?
7. Reading fee. Hello, Cafe Review.
Honestly, this whole post should have been "Places I really want to submit, but that actively seem to be avoiding it." I know there are other screen-out factors that will come to me. What about you?
Of course, for me to consider sending work to a journal, it has to publish work that I like. Duh. But that doesn't really narrow things down a whole lot for me, since I find work to enjoy in The Hudson Review and in New American Writing, or if you prefer, places that [Dana Gioia/Ron Silliman] would like and places that would give him an infarction. Blah blah blah, false dichotomy, blah. Beyond that, here are some screen-out factors I use to decide where I won't send work.
1. Doesn't accept simultaneous submissions, doesn't respond fast. This is my biggest "fuck you" factor, an incredibly pompous and dickish position to hold. If you won't "let" me send work elsewhere while you consider it, you can respond within 60 days on average. Venues this eliminates: The Hudson Review, American Poetry Review, The Antioch Review, etc. Way, way too many.
2. Lower tier journals that don't accept simultaneous submissions. Uh, seriously, do you think you're Poetry or The Threepenny Review or something? Especially egregious when they combine it with slow response time, but regardless, no-sim is a relic (witness how few e-zines have this requirement). Venues this eliminates: Pacific Review, Cider Press Review, etc.
3. Take an average of over 200 days to respond. This one contains several journals that make me really sad because I so like their content, including at least one co-edited by a fellow blogger/online friend (Jeffery, anything you guys can do to get your submission responses together?). Venues this eliminates: Many Mountains Moving, CutBank, Blackbird, etc.
4. Journals with no/paltry Web presence. This is 2008 (okay, almost 2008 as I write this). You can get an acceptable informational website for zero money and minimal expertise/time investment. Put your guidelines, general issue info, and contact information on there. Include an e-mail address for queries. You can put more, of course, but that will certainly do as a minimum. Venues this eliminates: The Canary (Is it still alive? I'd like to send work if it is), Terminus (they had a website when I sent work there, but it's vanished in the last month or so), Pinyon (lots of little university reviews fall in here because they have a "website" that totals one page with no valuable information).
5. Journals with asinine jump-through-these-hoops requirements. Places that make you send multiple copies of your poems or say you can't query even after a year without automatically withdrawing your poems. Venues this eliminates: Swink (honestly, their terrible response time and ridiculous guidelines were a primary impetus for this post), Forklift, Ohio, Hunger Mountain, etc.
6. Journals that copyright your poems in their own names. Oh HELL no. Do I really have to explain why this is garbage? Venues this eliminates: Free Lunch, I know there are other places that do this, maybe Prairie Schooner?
7. Reading fee. Hello, Cafe Review.
Honestly, this whole post should have been "Places I really want to submit, but that actively seem to be avoiding it." I know there are other screen-out factors that will come to me. What about you?
Comments:
<< Home
I'll get in line for that high five too, and add to the list "respectable" print journals whose editors consistently publish mediocre work by fellow editors. I'm not interested in competing with space reserved for insider fodder.
The Canary used to have a very good website and then it disappeared. I think the journal died with the website.
As one of the editors of the Canary, you'd think I'd know more about our current lack of web presence, but alas, I do not. Rumors of the death of the Canary may be greatly exaggerated. I don't know if we died, but if we did, nobody told me.
My hunch is that the other two editors are too busy with their new venture, Canarium Books, to worry about the journal at the moment. Of course, they haven't said a thing to me. Sigh.
Post a Comment
My hunch is that the other two editors are too busy with their new venture, Canarium Books, to worry about the journal at the moment. Of course, they haven't said a thing to me. Sigh.
<< Home
