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.
I'll say a little more: without the contests very few books of poetry, especially by writers without a publication history, would ever be published except through vanity presses or KDP. As the OP suggests, even winning one of those contests (even pretty prestigious ones) doesn't mean you'll see many copies sold.
The reason for that is painfully simple: very few people buy books of poetry. That includes poets themselves. I'd be surprised if even the folks that have won awards like the Iowa Prize or the Yale Younger poets have sold more than a handful of copies, though awards like the Walt Whitman skew the averages a bit since the sponsor (the Academy of American Poets) buys a whole bunch of copies to distribute to its membership. (Actually & honestly, the reason I wouldn't be surprised is because I know first hand, having won one of those big name contests & two other lesser known ones some years ago, and the publisher of that prestigious-press book sold a grand total of forty-some copies. Real deflation of the ol' ego, that).
Without the contest fees, most small presses just couldn't afford to publish the books at all. It's a lousy situation, but it is what it is. Some publishers will give free contest entry to folks with financial hardships and say so on their calls for submissions, if that helps at all. I very much doubt KDP or anything similar will ever change things much, because, again, no one but poets--and damned few of them--buy poetry books.
Edit: one other note vis a vis the "dead to the other presses" thing--that's actually one of the small benefits of the contest system--almost all the poetry book contests are anonymous, so they won't even know who you are. Do watch out for presses that aren't members of the CLMP (if they are, they'll have the label and CLMP's fairness statement posted prominently), as there are presses who stage "contests" that are not anonymous and/or are just judged by the owner of the press, things CLMP tends to frown upon.
Jack, thanks for sharing all this. Many good, strong points.
A couple notes.
I've heard from well-regarded poets that selling 40 copies is actually pretty standard (and not bad) for collection. There are only a few mega famous name checkable folks who sell boatloads of copies. This is my understanding at least.
My ears pricked up at the end when you mentioned CLMP frowning on press publishers/editors are the ones to judge their own contests. I was unaware of this policy. I'm wondering if it's well-known to others. I'll have to run this by Mary Gannon and her team to see if this is still something that draws ire.
The numbers sound about right from what I've heard from others. If you're Sherman Alexie or win a Pulitzer, the sky's the limit--but I doubt Alexie makes a ton from royalties--most of the lucre coming his way is likely from speaking fees, as endowments make for a pretty big pot of money for that sort of thing.
My sense is the frowns are more about single editors who choose winners. There's a certain press that I've railed about for years now that is run by one fellow who has a fairly popular book contest that he uses to stock his very extensive list by choosing one winner and then making publication offers to dozens of "finalists" (his press isn't on your list). The catch comes after a poet accepts the publication offer & is then told that there's a large number of pre-sales that the poet will have to make to even rate the press's applying for an ISBN for the book. Last time I heard, you had to sell 180 copies for that ISBN. Another press that is on your list isn't quite that deceptive, but also publishes dozens of titles a year and expects fairly large pre-sales for the book to actually reach printing & the editor/owner has a bit of a nasty reputation for harassing anyone who calls her out.
The CLMP is a great organization & I was around & working the po-biz when their contest code of ethics first became a thing, but the code is worded in an awfully vague way and doesn't include a lot of the unspoken & more specific sorts of stuff on the continuum of egregious publisher conduct that I kinda think it ought to. So, so far as "policy" is concerned, there's clearly nothing official about the single editor contest thing. The original impetus for the Code, as I recall, was a certain rather famous poet getting caught choosing her former students (and in one case her own husband) as the winners of various contests, and that's apparently the most immediate concern the code, rather vaguely, addresses.
I'm aware I'm coming off as a knowitall with some grudges. I apologize for that. I don't post about this stuff anywhere as a rule, but Patric's thoughts about the taboos around self-publishing poetry kind of got me rolling. I probably shouldn't Google around for this stuff & I'm going to let this be the last I have to say about it here. Thanks for the opportunity to vent.
The more time I see how funds move in the literary community, the more I understand why poets turn to self-publishing. So often, from what others share with me, poets simply want a visually nice looking text to share with friends and readers. The expectation is not that they're going to sell a bunch of copies, they are generally happen to give them away.
I worked with someone who was very much against giving away materials on the basis that people don't appreciate things they receive for free. While I get this to an extent, we're also talking about people in the arts community who usually do not have vast amounts of disposable income. And they cannot afford to buy all of their friends books (since "friends" is a wide net these days, very much in part due to social media).
I hear you about the grievances and its understandable. Feel free to DM regarding specifics you're interested in sharing privately.
Please see my reply to Mark for some thoughts about what you're asking in this post. Just a couple of quick remarks: there really isn't a "self-publishing taboo" in the poetry world, largely because one of the few real benefits of the contest system is the fact that almost all the contests are done anonymously (many don't even want you to list acknowledgements of previous publication).
We can hate the contest system all we want, but it's highly unlikely to ever change. There is no real profit in poetry books for any press except the shifty vanity-leaning ones, so contest fees are about all that keeps the books getting published at all. I look for a press to be a member of the CLMP and that they don't just have the editor picking the winners (and I research the judges to see what they themselves write). I also look to see how many books they publish annually and if they "pre-sale" their books. If they publish more than a handful of books a year, they may not be completely on the up-and-up (I know of a particularly shady poetry publisher who publishes well over a hundred titles a year--that's a big red flag & suggests the poets are having to buy most of the "sales" themselves to get to a minimum pre-sale number).
That said, I spend a couple grand a year on contest fees, and did as much early in my career when I could hardly afford it. It's just the reality.
Jack, you surprised me again here saying you spend "a couple grand" (!!) "a year on contest fees". This is FAR more than most spend (to the best of my knowledge). My understanding is, for those who can afford to do so, they may allocate $200-300 to spend on contest submissions annually. Can you talk a little more about this? How many contests are do you typically enter per year? Are you sending out multiple manuscripts or are you sending the same manuscript to many contests?
Some years more. Currently shopping three poetry manuscripts, two fiction manuscripts, a couple dozen poems, three stories. Not necessary, of course, to send poems & stories to contests, but it becomes a bit like a gambling addiction after a while (nothing like the occasional win to keep you hooked).
I honestly believe that if you're serious about publishing either poetry or short story collections, you've got to work the contests & you've got to do it consistently and frequently. The odds are just too stacked against you when some contests pull upwards of a thousand submissions--even if your work is outstanding, it tends to get lost in the noise of all those other outstandings. Persistence is just about as important as substance, IMHO.
This sort of thing is a large part of why most career poets are academics IMO. Gotta have income to support the habit (well, and feed the kids, but priorities). And there's the other side of that, of course, that you've gotta have pubs to support the academic career. And nothing quite shines on an annual review like winning a contest. Vicious cycle.
Edit: if you do end up spending a load on contest fees each year, it's absolutely essential IMO to treat it like a business, and that means claiming your expenses, including contest fees, on your taxes every year on a Schedule C. Definitely helps ease the pain.
Interesting information. I've followed the "Writer Beware" blog for years & regularly Google around for any sort of warning about semi-vanity presses. There is so little information, mostly I suspect because certain publishers (I'd direct anyone who's interested to writerbeware.blog) are eager to make your life miserable through harassment of both the legal and social media variety if you criticize their "business."
The sneakiest publishing model I've run into in my opinion is the sort operated by at least one press on your list and a few others not on your list that require large presales of books they've accepted before they will actually publish it. That's just vanity publishing from the back end, IMHO, but at least one other press I've run across not only does this, but doesn't let you know up front that a minimum of 180 presales are required before they'll even apply for an ISBN for your book. People with dreams are always easy victims.
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...
I'll say a little more: without the contests very few books of poetry, especially by writers without a publication history, would ever be published except through vanity presses or KDP. As the OP suggests, even winning one of those contests (even pretty prestigious ones) doesn't mean you'll see many copies sold.
The reason for that is painfully simple: very few people buy books of poetry. That includes poets themselves. I'd be surprised if even the folks that have won awards like the Iowa Prize or the Yale Younger poets have sold more than a handful of copies, though awards like the Walt Whitman skew the averages a bit since the sponsor (the Academy of American Poets) buys a whole bunch of copies to distribute to its membership. (Actually & honestly, the reason I wouldn't be surprised is because I know first hand, having won one of those big name contests & two other lesser known ones some years ago, and the publisher of that prestigious-press book sold a grand total of forty-some copies. Real deflation of the ol' ego, that).
Without the contest fees, most small presses just couldn't afford to publish the books at all. It's a lousy situation, but it is what it is. Some publishers will give free contest entry to folks with financial hardships and say so on their calls for submissions, if that helps at all. I very much doubt KDP or anything similar will ever change things much, because, again, no one but poets--and damned few of them--buy poetry books.
Edit: one other note vis a vis the "dead to the other presses" thing--that's actually one of the small benefits of the contest system--almost all the poetry book contests are anonymous, so they won't even know who you are. Do watch out for presses that aren't members of the CLMP (if they are, they'll have the label and CLMP's fairness statement posted prominently), as there are presses who stage "contests" that are not anonymous and/or are just judged by the owner of the press, things CLMP tends to frown upon.
Jack, thanks for sharing all this. Many good, strong points.
A couple notes.
I've heard from well-regarded poets that selling 40 copies is actually pretty standard (and not bad) for collection. There are only a few mega famous name checkable folks who sell boatloads of copies. This is my understanding at least.
My ears pricked up at the end when you mentioned CLMP frowning on press publishers/editors are the ones to judge their own contests. I was unaware of this policy. I'm wondering if it's well-known to others. I'll have to run this by Mary Gannon and her team to see if this is still something that draws ire.
The numbers sound about right from what I've heard from others. If you're Sherman Alexie or win a Pulitzer, the sky's the limit--but I doubt Alexie makes a ton from royalties--most of the lucre coming his way is likely from speaking fees, as endowments make for a pretty big pot of money for that sort of thing.
My sense is the frowns are more about single editors who choose winners. There's a certain press that I've railed about for years now that is run by one fellow who has a fairly popular book contest that he uses to stock his very extensive list by choosing one winner and then making publication offers to dozens of "finalists" (his press isn't on your list). The catch comes after a poet accepts the publication offer & is then told that there's a large number of pre-sales that the poet will have to make to even rate the press's applying for an ISBN for the book. Last time I heard, you had to sell 180 copies for that ISBN. Another press that is on your list isn't quite that deceptive, but also publishes dozens of titles a year and expects fairly large pre-sales for the book to actually reach printing & the editor/owner has a bit of a nasty reputation for harassing anyone who calls her out.
The CLMP is a great organization & I was around & working the po-biz when their contest code of ethics first became a thing, but the code is worded in an awfully vague way and doesn't include a lot of the unspoken & more specific sorts of stuff on the continuum of egregious publisher conduct that I kinda think it ought to. So, so far as "policy" is concerned, there's clearly nothing official about the single editor contest thing. The original impetus for the Code, as I recall, was a certain rather famous poet getting caught choosing her former students (and in one case her own husband) as the winners of various contests, and that's apparently the most immediate concern the code, rather vaguely, addresses.
I'm aware I'm coming off as a knowitall with some grudges. I apologize for that. I don't post about this stuff anywhere as a rule, but Patric's thoughts about the taboos around self-publishing poetry kind of got me rolling. I probably shouldn't Google around for this stuff & I'm going to let this be the last I have to say about it here. Thanks for the opportunity to vent.
Yes, of course, the Jorie Graham rule.
The more time I see how funds move in the literary community, the more I understand why poets turn to self-publishing. So often, from what others share with me, poets simply want a visually nice looking text to share with friends and readers. The expectation is not that they're going to sell a bunch of copies, they are generally happen to give them away.
I worked with someone who was very much against giving away materials on the basis that people don't appreciate things they receive for free. While I get this to an extent, we're also talking about people in the arts community who usually do not have vast amounts of disposable income. And they cannot afford to buy all of their friends books (since "friends" is a wide net these days, very much in part due to social media).
I hear you about the grievances and its understandable. Feel free to DM regarding specifics you're interested in sharing privately.
Please see my reply to Mark for some thoughts about what you're asking in this post. Just a couple of quick remarks: there really isn't a "self-publishing taboo" in the poetry world, largely because one of the few real benefits of the contest system is the fact that almost all the contests are done anonymously (many don't even want you to list acknowledgements of previous publication).
We can hate the contest system all we want, but it's highly unlikely to ever change. There is no real profit in poetry books for any press except the shifty vanity-leaning ones, so contest fees are about all that keeps the books getting published at all. I look for a press to be a member of the CLMP and that they don't just have the editor picking the winners (and I research the judges to see what they themselves write). I also look to see how many books they publish annually and if they "pre-sale" their books. If they publish more than a handful of books a year, they may not be completely on the up-and-up (I know of a particularly shady poetry publisher who publishes well over a hundred titles a year--that's a big red flag & suggests the poets are having to buy most of the "sales" themselves to get to a minimum pre-sale number).
That said, I spend a couple grand a year on contest fees, and did as much early in my career when I could hardly afford it. It's just the reality.
Jack, you surprised me again here saying you spend "a couple grand" (!!) "a year on contest fees". This is FAR more than most spend (to the best of my knowledge). My understanding is, for those who can afford to do so, they may allocate $200-300 to spend on contest submissions annually. Can you talk a little more about this? How many contests are do you typically enter per year? Are you sending out multiple manuscripts or are you sending the same manuscript to many contests?
Some years more. Currently shopping three poetry manuscripts, two fiction manuscripts, a couple dozen poems, three stories. Not necessary, of course, to send poems & stories to contests, but it becomes a bit like a gambling addiction after a while (nothing like the occasional win to keep you hooked).
I honestly believe that if you're serious about publishing either poetry or short story collections, you've got to work the contests & you've got to do it consistently and frequently. The odds are just too stacked against you when some contests pull upwards of a thousand submissions--even if your work is outstanding, it tends to get lost in the noise of all those other outstandings. Persistence is just about as important as substance, IMHO.
This sort of thing is a large part of why most career poets are academics IMO. Gotta have income to support the habit (well, and feed the kids, but priorities). And there's the other side of that, of course, that you've gotta have pubs to support the academic career. And nothing quite shines on an annual review like winning a contest. Vicious cycle.
Edit: if you do end up spending a load on contest fees each year, it's absolutely essential IMO to treat it like a business, and that means claiming your expenses, including contest fees, on your taxes every year on a Schedule C. Definitely helps ease the pain.
Very helpful! Thanks, Mark.
Interesting information. I've followed the "Writer Beware" blog for years & regularly Google around for any sort of warning about semi-vanity presses. There is so little information, mostly I suspect because certain publishers (I'd direct anyone who's interested to writerbeware.blog) are eager to make your life miserable through harassment of both the legal and social media variety if you criticize their "business."
The sneakiest publishing model I've run into in my opinion is the sort operated by at least one press on your list and a few others not on your list that require large presales of books they've accepted before they will actually publish it. That's just vanity publishing from the back end, IMHO, but at least one other press I've run across not only does this, but doesn't let you know up front that a minimum of 180 presales are required before they'll even apply for an ISBN for your book. People with dreams are always easy victims.
Oof, too true: "People with dreams are always easy victims."
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!!