Helpful information, Mark. And thanks. this is my first time on your website.
Perhaps you could explore the taboo for self publishing poetry. That taboo places the average poet in a true catch-22 situation. If you spend thousands of dollars in hopes of winning a well perceived contest, perhaps from a university press, as a friend of mine did, and after 11 years actually did win a university backed contest, you might look back and wonder if it is worth it. That friend of mine felt they got very little for the long wait and the enormous financial outlay. However, had they self published they would have been considered dead by the better presses, also running contests. The taboo all but forces poets who are serious about getting work into book form to simply self publish or spend thousands of dollars to perhaps win while supporting major contests that they have no realistic possibility of winning--or sending to a hybrid press, an essentially commercial press that offers a better chance of achieving publication. The alternative--to support a literary industry run by contests--becomes noxious, indeed poisonous, for the poets locked out of the cattle-chute esthetics of the industry, which might be suspected of simply taking the contest fees to publish their friends.
By the way, Cherry Grove is an imprint of WordTech, I believe. Maybe check that out.
Thanks for this thoughtful note, Patric. You raise an important issue -- "had they self published they would have been considered dead by the better presses". Now, I'm questioning how true is this statement? Previously, I would have been inclined to agree... Given the changing state of play, I wonder if self- and hybrid-publication is more understandable to presses. Partly because there are self-published texts that are later re-published by major presses after they've become successes. (Though I realize this is not the norm.)
I don't recommend contests to most poets/writers. The rule of thumb is that you should enter only if you truly believe your manuscript has the potential to win. Apart from confidence issues, it's hard to believe in yourself this much (varying by ego)... though, it's important to keep in mind that contests often do not share their numbers... and suspiciously (though I have- a few theories on reasons), many extend their deadlines which feels unfair. Some contests receive low rates of submissions so your chances are statistically not terrible... the issue is that you have to beat out the top contenders. Also, some of us are not writing the kinds of books that are likely to win contests. This is, obviously, a huge gray area. Seeing what publishers tend to publish will give you a better idea -- again, this likely involves spending $$$ to find out what they publish. It's a game for writers who have disposable income and, inherently, is biased against writers who cannot afford to participate in a pay to play situation.
Helpful information, Mark. And thanks. this is my first time on your website.
Perhaps you could explore the taboo for self publishing poetry. That taboo places the average poet in a true catch-22 situation. If you spend thousands of dollars in hopes of winning a well perceived contest, perhaps from a university press, as a friend of mine did, and after 11 years actually did win a university backed contest, you might look back and wonder if it is worth it. That friend of mine felt they got very little for the long wait and the enormous financial outlay. However, had they self published they would have been considered dead by the better presses, also running contests. The taboo all but forces poets who are serious about getting work into book form to simply self publish or spend thousands of dollars to perhaps win while supporting major contests that they have no realistic possibility of winning--or sending to a hybrid press, an essentially commercial press that offers a better chance of achieving publication. The alternative--to support a literary industry run by contests--becomes noxious, indeed poisonous, for the poets locked out of the cattle-chute esthetics of the industry, which might be suspected of simply taking the contest fees to publish their friends.
By the way, Cherry Grove is an imprint of WordTech, I believe. Maybe check that out.
Thanks for this thoughtful note, Patric. You raise an important issue -- "had they self published they would have been considered dead by the better presses". Now, I'm questioning how true is this statement? Previously, I would have been inclined to agree... Given the changing state of play, I wonder if self- and hybrid-publication is more understandable to presses. Partly because there are self-published texts that are later re-published by major presses after they've become successes. (Though I realize this is not the norm.)
I don't recommend contests to most poets/writers. The rule of thumb is that you should enter only if you truly believe your manuscript has the potential to win. Apart from confidence issues, it's hard to believe in yourself this much (varying by ego)... though, it's important to keep in mind that contests often do not share their numbers... and suspiciously (though I have- a few theories on reasons), many extend their deadlines which feels unfair. Some contests receive low rates of submissions so your chances are statistically not terrible... the issue is that you have to beat out the top contenders. Also, some of us are not writing the kinds of books that are likely to win contests. This is, obviously, a huge gray area. Seeing what publishers tend to publish will give you a better idea -- again, this likely involves spending $$$ to find out what they publish. It's a game for writers who have disposable income and, inherently, is biased against writers who cannot afford to participate in a pay to play situation.
There is so much more to say...
Very helpful! Thanks, Mark.
This is great, Mark. Very useful. I will pass it own to those in my workshop who are looking to place books.
I'm delighted! Thank you, Donna!!
Great, useful work, Mark.
Thank you, James!!