Keeping in mind this discussion, I'm working on updates to ONE ART's Submission Guidelines.
Please let me know your thoughts as this process continues to unfold. The guidelines may be briefly in flux as I experiment with small changes to determine what is ideal and sustainable.
Mark, I think that you should add tip options for submitters. One dollar is fine but allow people to donate more if they wish – perhaps a $5,$10, and $20 option. I agree with your noble reasons for not charging submissions fees. But allow people the opportunity to thank you for the considerable work you do in publishing the magazine. Acts of kindness are good for both the giver and receiver. As for charging a nominal fee for submission – for the first five or six years of Cleaver, we did not charge any submission fee and I felt really strongly about not having that barrier. However, we were getting slammed submissions, many of which were inappropriate for the magazine. After much consideration., we institute a small fee, which now pays for the Submittable account. But anyone who wishes a fee waiver just needs to ask, and we give it to them – we don’t need any explanation. That’s worked well for us and as a side benefit, we don’t get any AI submissions. Even if you don’t take any compensation for your own labor, I know that your publication has expenses. The small amount you will derive from the tip jar can help pay these expenses. Or, if you really want, you can donate it elsewhere.
I do encourage donations. $3, $5, $10 donations are not uncommon. It's usually the same poets who give and the generosity is, of course, greatly appreciated. In almost all cases, the poets who donate are poets who are sharing work that is worthy of acceptance. This is interested to reflect on in and of itself. They know their work is good and yet they want to support the place that is curating/platforming. These are the folks who really are, in many instances, most deserving of compensation for their work... so it's a strange inversion.
That's a really good side benefit you mentioned about AI. Serious reason to use a platform that discourages that threat.
Yeah, there's a ton of expenses even without Submittable. Not a nonprofit so no board for ONE ART. (We've discussed.) Still, it's a business. I'm not allergic to getting compensated. It's certainly justifiable. Once in a while donations are light for the month and I kinda wanna nudge on socials but that seems like an obnoxious thing to do...
I would have no problem paying a dollar fee each time I submit to One Art, Mark. That said, I submit poems to journals, often to 15 journals per week, tho I haven't done that this month; I've been so busy with other things. But fees do "add up," and I don't think I could afford say, a 3 or 5 dollar fee for each submission. As a rule, I avoid submitting to journals that charge fees.
Peter, you're a good example of someone who would be really turned off by the sub fee barrier. Anyone who is a heavy submitter shouldn't be punished for their commitment/dedication/ambition.
To say one more thing -- what I like best about the new, online model of shared abundance is that it works like a gift economy for the writers. It's wonderful to unexpectedly come upon a poem that truly delights me and to say so and hopefully why, and also to be told that something I've put out there has delighted someone. It lifts the spirits. That still leaves the problem of rewarding editors for their considerable labor.
I really appreciate journals that don't charge a submission fee, so thank you for that. On the other hand, I don't mind paying up to $3 to submit -- I mean no one is getting rich off that. Narrative charges $26 which is ridiculous, and exploitative, and I stay away from any review that charges more than $3, unless they pay. Even there my limit is low -- for example I don't enter contests because I think you might as well spend your money on lottery tickets. Although it likely also means I won't get one of those high paying adjunct job, hehehe. But back to your original queries, I don't think $1 will keep anyone from submitting (i.e., reduce the number of folks submitting inappropriate work, although I'm not sure I could quantify what inappropriate work is other than multiple spelling errors and tell don't show.) Someone below mentioned tip jars and if they're truly optional I think that's a good idea. I do think running a literary journal is a labor of love and I don't know how it can be sustained without financial inputs, either a foundation, or private benefactor, or direct charges. Oh, and with over 150 poems published in almost 70 literary reviews, I have to say that reading a review hasn't helped me much in determining where to submit (in fact I have a submitted poem on this very subject). Once you get beyond the "we don't publish graphical poems" or "we only publish graphical poems" the range of variation within a few issues is large enough to make most of my submissions worth a try. And kudos to those editors that tell us specifically what they're looking for "prose poems" "third-person poems", "hermit crab essays" -- they make my life as a writer so much easier...
I think journals are worried about pigeonholing themselves by saying "we want x but not y" and I get that. ONE ART is kinda obvious about what is likely to land vs. what is a long shot.
There is a shift going on at ONE ART presently and that's partly just due to having read so much of the same thing over and over that my taste is getting a little _______ (insert uncertainty) ... I can feel a bit of a shift and that's interesting ... I'm just bored and my eyes glaze over a lot easier (sorry folks) ...
I understand completely, it's kind of like the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" response of the Supreme Court. I think the difficulty is writing something that has some generality without it being saccharine or trite. In my own writing I strive for seeing/feeling/describing something new in the commonplace. That's where a good turn comes in.
This, big sigh, but I hear you and it feels all too real: "Oh, and with over 150 poems published in almost 70 literary reviews, I have to say that reading a review hasn't helped me much in determining where to submit..."
Thanks, I really believe that, but also recognize that young writers who are looking for teaching jobs and greater recognition, really seem to need these honors. I mean whenever I listen to most poetry podcasts the introduction typically includes a litany of won this, finalist for that, placed for something else. And as I've already stated, that ain't me. But I also want to acknowledge that I've been fortunate to have a number of readings under my belt, from hosts who haven't minded my lack of contest wins or lack of MFA.
Awards are a whole different conversation. There are a lot of problems in that realm. Stats who they typically go to those who attended Ivy League schools... even decades before granted awards.
Every community is a microcosm of the greater society and we see these problems play out at scale.
The MFA route is complicated and, well, turning a corner. Tim Green (Rattle) speaks well on this subject. In many instances, the MFA is a pyramid scheme and we've run out of jobs at the bottom.
Thanks, that looks fascinating, and a new book to read. And on the "workshop poem" problem, Katie Doziers Poetry Space has two recent and informative podcasts on "workshops" but you likely already know about those.
+1 tip options, +1 friction, and can I suggest lengthening the minimum interval between submissions, say to six months (what Thrush used to do)? If you enjoy reading someone’s work, you can always shorten that interval in your editorial response, while slowing down the repeat yeeters by a factor of three.
Regarding the $1 submission fee, I like pointing people at ONE ART but would be somewhat reticent even with a $1 submission fee. (I haven’t subbed myself because much of my stuff tends not to be a fit; the fee wouldn’t be a consideration.)
I especially appreciate your suggestion for blanket rules vs. individual exceptions. TBH, I kinda do this anyhow. Big surprise. I'm sure other journals do as well. The reality is there's no such things as fair/objective/unbiased; how you go about it is where the ethics come into play.
You've given me a good idea here to work off of. I think the baseline of 3 months is probably sensible. It's not really about discouraging anyone... it's a matter of periods of growth.
I'd be interested to hear what Helen Vitoria's thoughts on this are since Thrush's 6-months rule seemed both useful and definitely made me more thoughtful about what I would send along.
My other thought was that, if you did surrender and take on readers, you could have them identify what they thought is the best poem in each packet they feel isn’t ready. Then you wouldn’t completely lose eyes on the whole pile.
Yes, friction. You might consider adding a note to the guidelines requesting a statement asking which poems in ONE ART caught their eye, and encouraged them to see their work as a good fit for the journal.
What you suggest is, in theory, a good idea. Unfortunately, realistically, I think at best many non-regular contributors who are not invested members in ONE ART's community (or other journal's communities / greater lit community) is that they might look at the last few published poems or see a name they recognize published in the journal and name drop.
I think we know how this usually goes. I really do understand where folks are coming from. I know it's not realistic to expect them to spend hours pouring over the archive to determine "fit" or "a good home' for their work, though you would think this was desirable...
I definitely know how it feels from the poet/writer perspective in terms of time management. It's hard to keep up with what lit mags are looking for "these days" since there can be some shift in their interests.
I really don't want to make the process harder for poets. I would just prefer that they take a beat before sending off work.
The frustration is mostly about "slush" subs where the poets really are not in a place to share work publicly. This has always been the case... but we all have to start somewhere. With AI, it's going to be a real problem and I'm bracing myself for that. That will probably be the turning point when it becomes sadly necessary to make poets/writers jump through a lot more hoops (if it's even possible to push back).
I think the $1.00 fee is absolutely fine. This is a well respected much read publication. I do think the payment in return would be to have been published in One Art. The problem does arise when people submit things that are so off base for what this magazine publishes. Or perhaps it arises from the wealth of so many to choose from? That, only you all know. But I know, it does take so much time and thought to truly publish the poems you believe best represent what One Art stands for and for that, I think that deserves $1.00 from a poet who might pay high above that to join a workshop to have their one on one time with someone to review their poems for feedback in a general sense. I do have one general question. When reading a poem submitted, do you read the author and bio info before or after reading the poem? Or do you read blindly? Or is that none of my beeswax. Thanks!
Sara, that's the attention paid to the time it takes to be a curator or the dreaded 'gatekeeper' (which is definitely not a favorable term at present). It does take a lot of time and effort and, after years and years of doing variations on this job, yeah, I'd say it deserves a form of compensation even though, historically, the community likes to throw around the "labor of love" phrasing... honestly, it's always felt like a bizarre excuse for not paying staff... which is why ONE ART doesn't have staff (except for Louisa who I'm married to... so, slightly different situation, and Katie Dozier who is kindly Guest Editing a 2nd ONE ART Haiku Anthology... which she seems to value... though I do think in a more perfect world I'd be able to properly provide reasonable compensation for time, effort, success).
I don't read blind. I don't think it makes sense TBH. I don't believe in "The Death of The Author" as lit theory concept & to me this is related. I want to know who I'm dealing with pre-decision to publish. I try not to look hard at the cover letter before reviewing the work. The work should speak for itself but there's more in play imo. I don't care if people have won awards or published etc. There is always going to be bias imo -- we can't escape it & most efforts to minimize it just don't make sense to me. I move thru the world the way I move thru it & my subjective experience of work is a key component in the framework of decision-making. It's not a humble brag or a brag brag but this is basically the one thing I've gotten really good at... because I've put in so many hours over a lot of years. I'm a way better editor of poetry than I am at writing poetry. I think I'm a good writer... but that's a whole different conversation. The short answer feels like it requires a sport metaphor... like there's getting to that Top 90% or Top 95% of skilled poets/writers & there's there's the NBA... and most of us just aren't quite at the NBA so we remain in the G League (or minor league or whatever)... Hopefully that sounds apt.
I personally won't submit if I have to pay, so I appreciate the mags that have other creative ways to limit work without charging fees of all submitters. Chestnut Review is free to submit for 1-3 poems and then charges a fee for more. I think that's a clever way to force a writer to look more closely at what 3 poems they are submitting, rather than just shooting off any old poem. Limiting the number of free submissions available per time period, number of weeks open to submissions, or how often poets can submit are all reasonable to me.
I understand getting overwhelmed by AI poems and poems that clearly aren't good enough/ ready to submit, much less publish. BUT I'm always a bit discouraged by guidelines that make me feel like they will judge me if they think my poems are bad. I'm sure it's hard to get the idea across to established poets--hey you know which poems are ready. Don't disrespect me by sending ones you know aren't ready-- without discouraging new poets from even trying, because they are still trying to feel out what makes a poem ready or not.
I'll admit that my submission strategy is to submit many poems widely, even ones I'm unsure of, because the responses I get (whether acceptances, tiered rejections, or flat out rejections) have helped me pare down to see what journals are responding positively to my work and what poems are getting the most traction. I had one poem get 45 rejections, but a number of those rejections mentioned that poem by name as one they enjoyed, which helped me keep pushing until it found a home, while other poems sent in those same batches were retired much sooner. When it comes to poems, I'm a r reproductive strategist (make millions of babies and send them out into the world to live or die on their own) rather than a K strategist (have only a few babies, so you can focus on nurturing, protecting, and guiding them into adulthood).
The sense of disrespect, for me, comes into play when I discover that poets send work that is notably better to other journals than the work that they sent to ONE ART. While I understand to a degree, it's still a bit of a slap. This is an Editor's perspective mind you.
I've sent out plenty of terrible work... but I certainly didn't think it was terrible at the time.
I do certainly understand tiered subs and agree with the rationale. We all having "darling" poems and other art that we believe in and want to see in the world even if none of the gatekeepers seem to agree that the work has merit.
Mark, I agree with the principle behind not charging submission fees. But I fear it may not be sustainable. Plus, it appears to compound the problem if indeed it increases an editor's load without benefit to the journal in terms of the quality of submissions. Perhaps there are ways to help poets determine whether their work is a good fit for a journal. For example, some journals do a better job of making samples accessible. Suggesting that potential submitters buy a copy only makes submitting harder and more expensive. Although perhaps the idea. But also, I find that some editor's descriptions of what they are looking for are abstract, self-indulgent, or even off-putting. I can't off hand think of an example, but telling a writer that they are seeking poems that blow their minds is not really useful. But to be fair, finding the right fit is not as easy as some folks appear to make it.
Thanks for all that you contribute to the small press enterprise.
I should (and will) work on a list of poems published in ONE ART that provide more clarity about the types of poems likely to "fit".
The problem / fear is dissuading someone from sending something that I would love but would have no way of predicting. You know?
In the ONE ART guidelines, I offer a list of "Representative Poets" as well as "Poets who exemplify the range of work ONE ART is seeking" ... but your average person probably is not going to scroll that far into the guidelines ...
I think that your submission site is an incredible resource. There is nothing like it. The representative lists should convey to anyone that your editorial disposition acknowledges the vast array of poetic voices in our midst today. At times I feel as though I have limited opportunity to find a fit as I am an older white male whose writing in some sense was informed by an earlier generation of poets who emerged post 1950s. There are poets on your list that would give me some confidence that my work would not be declined out of hand. Still, I know of a poet who has published numerous books of poetry, who has also received Guggenheim and NEA fellowships and other awards and prizes such as the James Dickey Prize who I think feels out of step in the current climate. But I acknowledge that this might be the nature of the arts in general as one generation emerges as a previous begins to pass on. I noted that Ted Kooser is on one of your lists. I hope that folks have looked closely at the career of Galway Kinnell and Anne Sexton. Put another way, how obligated is an editor of a journal or a press to have a grasp of, say, 20th century poetry? Apologies if I have gone too far beyond what you are asking for. I can only hope that it is useful somehow. Whether one dollar or three, one is not only supporting hard working readers and editors. One must keep in mind that their efforts help poets to find an audience. I do, however, have issues with some contests and their fees. By the way, I do appreciate your being open to good stuff that might not be the best fit for your journal.
Thanks for this thoughtful response, Stephen. I saw it late last night and decided to sleep on it. Lots to unpack here.
I've been hearing similar statements since I became more seriously involved in the literary community in 2009. Statements about men, particularly white men, feeling like we live in a time when work that feels "of another time" is not appreciated. I don't think it's anti-DEI or anything of that sort, I think people don't mean to come off badly with this kind of statement, though unfortunately it tends not to sit well.
The poetry community (and larger literary community) has expanded so much that I'm confident there are niche groups for everyone.
Ted Kooser is a terrific poet though his work may not feel "exciting" for all audiences. To each their own.
I'm fairly confident a majority of serious contemporary poets have had at least mild exposure to Sexton's work. I can't say the same for Kinnell.
I'm torn about "required reading" nowadays. In part because we're always standing on the shoulders of giants. So, even when a poet does not directly realize their influences, those influences have provided them with the language and tools to build off of.
Duotrope currently lists 7,608 publishers/markets. Finding your current audience has become harder. I don't think that's in question. I believe many will feel similarly. That they struggle to find Community and readership.
Doing my best to provide a good Community space with ONE ART.
Verse-Virtual has created a friendly space.
There are many examples...
We could all do a better job of sharing resources/information so that others can find spaces that are best suited to them/their work.
Mark--Your perspectives on these matters, which I value, are critical for things to progress. I fear that ideas about poetry may be a bit narrow and less fluid these days. I see in journals here and there interest in experimental poetry. Therefore, I would hope that they might know a little about the work of, say, Robert Creeley. Anyway, I admit I am becoming a bit cranky in my old age. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Stephen
I'm for a submission fee as well.I would say a fee of $5 for a max of three poems isn't unreasonable in this day and age.Writer may expect a word or two from the editor if the piece is rejected.I also favour keeping the donation option open.We appreciate your hard work Mark.
Some lit mags do offer the "service" of commentary for those who tip/pay to submit. Something about that rubs me a little wrong... If I have the knowledge/feedback to share... I should probably simply share, right? Seems unfair to withhold just because someone did not tip... I give feedback when I feel there is something useful to share. I've learned just how tricky that is because all too often any feedback with a rejection seems to result in people feeling the sting of rejection even more so... I certainly don't want to double down on the pain even if my intentions are good.
A better route, for example, might be NPR-style fundraising to offset costs.
In this case, I'm seeking to dissuade people from sending submissions that are not even close to aligned with the the journal. This is a problem for all lit mags since forever (snail mail days included).
It's tricky here because I'm trying to be friendly to poets/writers but the result is I'm causing myself grief by making the submission process so simple/appealing.
One could argue that it is counter-intuitive to pay a publication to print a piece of literature in order to make money, recognizing of course that many small literary magazine struggle to cover costs rather that make a profit! As an individual who began submitting poetry in the 70s and 80's, submission fees were rare to small independent presses. However, submissions did require SASE photocopying costs and postage, so they were hardly free. Whether presses should impose a "reading" fee, or whether they should request a donation for those capable of affording to do so would be my question.
Yeah it's often pointed out that snail mail subs with SASE were similar if not more expensive (given inflation) to $3. But the lit mag did not stand to gain anything in that scenario.
It's hard to compare to a time before electronic submissions because there is so much less friction.
I did a decent amount of snail mail subs in the early 2010s and it felt more meaningful but was also a hassle. The cost of supplies, printing, SASE, going to the post office. There is a nice ritualistic element... I wish we could bring back some of the ritual but it's really positive that we've taken away the burden of entry.
Well said Mark, not only did the publisher not benefit financially, but he/she had to play Santa and trek to the post office with a bag full of SASE on a regular basis. I do agree that there was a tactile thrill in opening the mail to see if you were accepted. Much more pleasurable than opening an email or often never hearing anything.
Keeping in mind this discussion, I'm working on updates to ONE ART's Submission Guidelines.
Please let me know your thoughts as this process continues to unfold. The guidelines may be briefly in flux as I experiment with small changes to determine what is ideal and sustainable.
https://oneartpoetry.com/submissions/
Mark, I think that you should add tip options for submitters. One dollar is fine but allow people to donate more if they wish – perhaps a $5,$10, and $20 option. I agree with your noble reasons for not charging submissions fees. But allow people the opportunity to thank you for the considerable work you do in publishing the magazine. Acts of kindness are good for both the giver and receiver. As for charging a nominal fee for submission – for the first five or six years of Cleaver, we did not charge any submission fee and I felt really strongly about not having that barrier. However, we were getting slammed submissions, many of which were inappropriate for the magazine. After much consideration., we institute a small fee, which now pays for the Submittable account. But anyone who wishes a fee waiver just needs to ask, and we give it to them – we don’t need any explanation. That’s worked well for us and as a side benefit, we don’t get any AI submissions. Even if you don’t take any compensation for your own labor, I know that your publication has expenses. The small amount you will derive from the tip jar can help pay these expenses. Or, if you really want, you can donate it elsewhere.
Thanks, Karen, you're the best!
I do encourage donations. $3, $5, $10 donations are not uncommon. It's usually the same poets who give and the generosity is, of course, greatly appreciated. In almost all cases, the poets who donate are poets who are sharing work that is worthy of acceptance. This is interested to reflect on in and of itself. They know their work is good and yet they want to support the place that is curating/platforming. These are the folks who really are, in many instances, most deserving of compensation for their work... so it's a strange inversion.
That's a really good side benefit you mentioned about AI. Serious reason to use a platform that discourages that threat.
Yeah, there's a ton of expenses even without Submittable. Not a nonprofit so no board for ONE ART. (We've discussed.) Still, it's a business. I'm not allergic to getting compensated. It's certainly justifiable. Once in a while donations are light for the month and I kinda wanna nudge on socials but that seems like an obnoxious thing to do...
100% behind your $1.00 - you had me at friction and time as currency (of which I included in a newly finished poem).
I'm in.
Thank you, Susan. Glad you appreciate where I'm coming from. I'll be interested to see if others are as enthusiastic about this idea.
I would have no problem paying a dollar fee each time I submit to One Art, Mark. That said, I submit poems to journals, often to 15 journals per week, tho I haven't done that this month; I've been so busy with other things. But fees do "add up," and I don't think I could afford say, a 3 or 5 dollar fee for each submission. As a rule, I avoid submitting to journals that charge fees.
Peter, you're a good example of someone who would be really turned off by the sub fee barrier. Anyone who is a heavy submitter shouldn't be punished for their commitment/dedication/ambition.
I appreciate your understanding that, Mark. But, again, a One Art tip jar seems a good idea.
I would tip when/if I had the means! I so appreciate what One Art does. You guys have earned it, IMHO
Completely understand, Rachel! xo
To say one more thing -- what I like best about the new, online model of shared abundance is that it works like a gift economy for the writers. It's wonderful to unexpectedly come upon a poem that truly delights me and to say so and hopefully why, and also to be told that something I've put out there has delighted someone. It lifts the spirits. That still leaves the problem of rewarding editors for their considerable labor.
I like "gift economy" in this context :)
I really appreciate journals that don't charge a submission fee, so thank you for that. On the other hand, I don't mind paying up to $3 to submit -- I mean no one is getting rich off that. Narrative charges $26 which is ridiculous, and exploitative, and I stay away from any review that charges more than $3, unless they pay. Even there my limit is low -- for example I don't enter contests because I think you might as well spend your money on lottery tickets. Although it likely also means I won't get one of those high paying adjunct job, hehehe. But back to your original queries, I don't think $1 will keep anyone from submitting (i.e., reduce the number of folks submitting inappropriate work, although I'm not sure I could quantify what inappropriate work is other than multiple spelling errors and tell don't show.) Someone below mentioned tip jars and if they're truly optional I think that's a good idea. I do think running a literary journal is a labor of love and I don't know how it can be sustained without financial inputs, either a foundation, or private benefactor, or direct charges. Oh, and with over 150 poems published in almost 70 literary reviews, I have to say that reading a review hasn't helped me much in determining where to submit (in fact I have a submitted poem on this very subject). Once you get beyond the "we don't publish graphical poems" or "we only publish graphical poems" the range of variation within a few issues is large enough to make most of my submissions worth a try. And kudos to those editors that tell us specifically what they're looking for "prose poems" "third-person poems", "hermit crab essays" -- they make my life as a writer so much easier...
I think journals are worried about pigeonholing themselves by saying "we want x but not y" and I get that. ONE ART is kinda obvious about what is likely to land vs. what is a long shot.
There is a shift going on at ONE ART presently and that's partly just due to having read so much of the same thing over and over that my taste is getting a little _______ (insert uncertainty) ... I can feel a bit of a shift and that's interesting ... I'm just bored and my eyes glaze over a lot easier (sorry folks) ...
I understand completely, it's kind of like the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" response of the Supreme Court. I think the difficulty is writing something that has some generality without it being saccharine or trite. In my own writing I strive for seeing/feeling/describing something new in the commonplace. That's where a good turn comes in.
This, big sigh, but I hear you and it feels all too real: "Oh, and with over 150 poems published in almost 70 literary reviews, I have to say that reading a review hasn't helped me much in determining where to submit..."
First, I love the comparison of contests to lotto tix.
This needs to be quoted often.
Thanks, I really believe that, but also recognize that young writers who are looking for teaching jobs and greater recognition, really seem to need these honors. I mean whenever I listen to most poetry podcasts the introduction typically includes a litany of won this, finalist for that, placed for something else. And as I've already stated, that ain't me. But I also want to acknowledge that I've been fortunate to have a number of readings under my belt, from hosts who haven't minded my lack of contest wins or lack of MFA.
Awards are a whole different conversation. There are a lot of problems in that realm. Stats who they typically go to those who attended Ivy League schools... even decades before granted awards.
Every community is a microcosm of the greater society and we see these problems play out at scale.
The MFA route is complicated and, well, turning a corner. Tim Green (Rattle) speaks well on this subject. In many instances, the MFA is a pyramid scheme and we've run out of jobs at the bottom.
I encourage this read on the MFA
https://www.svjlit.com/interviews/an-interview-with-raymond-hammond-by-brian-fanelli-new-material-svj-online-issue-6
Thanks, that looks fascinating, and a new book to read. And on the "workshop poem" problem, Katie Doziers Poetry Space has two recent and informative podcasts on "workshops" but you likely already know about those.
+1 tip options, +1 friction, and can I suggest lengthening the minimum interval between submissions, say to six months (what Thrush used to do)? If you enjoy reading someone’s work, you can always shorten that interval in your editorial response, while slowing down the repeat yeeters by a factor of three.
Regarding the $1 submission fee, I like pointing people at ONE ART but would be somewhat reticent even with a $1 submission fee. (I haven’t subbed myself because much of my stuff tends not to be a fit; the fee wouldn’t be a consideration.)
Thanks for your honest input, David.
I especially appreciate your suggestion for blanket rules vs. individual exceptions. TBH, I kinda do this anyhow. Big surprise. I'm sure other journals do as well. The reality is there's no such things as fair/objective/unbiased; how you go about it is where the ethics come into play.
You've given me a good idea here to work off of. I think the baseline of 3 months is probably sensible. It's not really about discouraging anyone... it's a matter of periods of growth.
I'd be interested to hear what Helen Vitoria's thoughts on this are since Thrush's 6-months rule seemed both useful and definitely made me more thoughtful about what I would send along.
My other thought was that, if you did surrender and take on readers, you could have them identify what they thought is the best poem in each packet they feel isn’t ready. Then you wouldn’t completely lose eyes on the whole pile.
Yes, friction. You might consider adding a note to the guidelines requesting a statement asking which poems in ONE ART caught their eye, and encouraged them to see their work as a good fit for the journal.
What you suggest is, in theory, a good idea. Unfortunately, realistically, I think at best many non-regular contributors who are not invested members in ONE ART's community (or other journal's communities / greater lit community) is that they might look at the last few published poems or see a name they recognize published in the journal and name drop.
I think we know how this usually goes. I really do understand where folks are coming from. I know it's not realistic to expect them to spend hours pouring over the archive to determine "fit" or "a good home' for their work, though you would think this was desirable...
I definitely know how it feels from the poet/writer perspective in terms of time management. It's hard to keep up with what lit mags are looking for "these days" since there can be some shift in their interests.
I really don't want to make the process harder for poets. I would just prefer that they take a beat before sending off work.
The frustration is mostly about "slush" subs where the poets really are not in a place to share work publicly. This has always been the case... but we all have to start somewhere. With AI, it's going to be a real problem and I'm bracing myself for that. That will probably be the turning point when it becomes sadly necessary to make poets/writers jump through a lot more hoops (if it's even possible to push back).
You are a kind and patient man!
I certainly try my best :) xoxo
You are amazing xoxoxo
I think the $1.00 fee is absolutely fine. This is a well respected much read publication. I do think the payment in return would be to have been published in One Art. The problem does arise when people submit things that are so off base for what this magazine publishes. Or perhaps it arises from the wealth of so many to choose from? That, only you all know. But I know, it does take so much time and thought to truly publish the poems you believe best represent what One Art stands for and for that, I think that deserves $1.00 from a poet who might pay high above that to join a workshop to have their one on one time with someone to review their poems for feedback in a general sense. I do have one general question. When reading a poem submitted, do you read the author and bio info before or after reading the poem? Or do you read blindly? Or is that none of my beeswax. Thanks!
Sara, that's the attention paid to the time it takes to be a curator or the dreaded 'gatekeeper' (which is definitely not a favorable term at present). It does take a lot of time and effort and, after years and years of doing variations on this job, yeah, I'd say it deserves a form of compensation even though, historically, the community likes to throw around the "labor of love" phrasing... honestly, it's always felt like a bizarre excuse for not paying staff... which is why ONE ART doesn't have staff (except for Louisa who I'm married to... so, slightly different situation, and Katie Dozier who is kindly Guest Editing a 2nd ONE ART Haiku Anthology... which she seems to value... though I do think in a more perfect world I'd be able to properly provide reasonable compensation for time, effort, success).
I don't read blind. I don't think it makes sense TBH. I don't believe in "The Death of The Author" as lit theory concept & to me this is related. I want to know who I'm dealing with pre-decision to publish. I try not to look hard at the cover letter before reviewing the work. The work should speak for itself but there's more in play imo. I don't care if people have won awards or published etc. There is always going to be bias imo -- we can't escape it & most efforts to minimize it just don't make sense to me. I move thru the world the way I move thru it & my subjective experience of work is a key component in the framework of decision-making. It's not a humble brag or a brag brag but this is basically the one thing I've gotten really good at... because I've put in so many hours over a lot of years. I'm a way better editor of poetry than I am at writing poetry. I think I'm a good writer... but that's a whole different conversation. The short answer feels like it requires a sport metaphor... like there's getting to that Top 90% or Top 95% of skilled poets/writers & there's there's the NBA... and most of us just aren't quite at the NBA so we remain in the G League (or minor league or whatever)... Hopefully that sounds apt.
I personally won't submit if I have to pay, so I appreciate the mags that have other creative ways to limit work without charging fees of all submitters. Chestnut Review is free to submit for 1-3 poems and then charges a fee for more. I think that's a clever way to force a writer to look more closely at what 3 poems they are submitting, rather than just shooting off any old poem. Limiting the number of free submissions available per time period, number of weeks open to submissions, or how often poets can submit are all reasonable to me.
I understand getting overwhelmed by AI poems and poems that clearly aren't good enough/ ready to submit, much less publish. BUT I'm always a bit discouraged by guidelines that make me feel like they will judge me if they think my poems are bad. I'm sure it's hard to get the idea across to established poets--hey you know which poems are ready. Don't disrespect me by sending ones you know aren't ready-- without discouraging new poets from even trying, because they are still trying to feel out what makes a poem ready or not.
I'll admit that my submission strategy is to submit many poems widely, even ones I'm unsure of, because the responses I get (whether acceptances, tiered rejections, or flat out rejections) have helped me pare down to see what journals are responding positively to my work and what poems are getting the most traction. I had one poem get 45 rejections, but a number of those rejections mentioned that poem by name as one they enjoyed, which helped me keep pushing until it found a home, while other poems sent in those same batches were retired much sooner. When it comes to poems, I'm a r reproductive strategist (make millions of babies and send them out into the world to live or die on their own) rather than a K strategist (have only a few babies, so you can focus on nurturing, protecting, and guiding them into adulthood).
The sense of disrespect, for me, comes into play when I discover that poets send work that is notably better to other journals than the work that they sent to ONE ART. While I understand to a degree, it's still a bit of a slap. This is an Editor's perspective mind you.
I've sent out plenty of terrible work... but I certainly didn't think it was terrible at the time.
I do certainly understand tiered subs and agree with the rationale. We all having "darling" poems and other art that we believe in and want to see in the world even if none of the gatekeepers seem to agree that the work has merit.
I appreciate you sharing your positions on submission strategy. Valid.
Great point about the Chestnut Review policy you pointed out.
FRICTION!!! The best term for this. And I get it— you know where I’d make changes that way. Thanks for all of your thoughtfulness.
Oh I know!
Mark, I agree with the principle behind not charging submission fees. But I fear it may not be sustainable. Plus, it appears to compound the problem if indeed it increases an editor's load without benefit to the journal in terms of the quality of submissions. Perhaps there are ways to help poets determine whether their work is a good fit for a journal. For example, some journals do a better job of making samples accessible. Suggesting that potential submitters buy a copy only makes submitting harder and more expensive. Although perhaps the idea. But also, I find that some editor's descriptions of what they are looking for are abstract, self-indulgent, or even off-putting. I can't off hand think of an example, but telling a writer that they are seeking poems that blow their minds is not really useful. But to be fair, finding the right fit is not as easy as some folks appear to make it.
Thanks for all that you contribute to the small press enterprise.
Stephen
Good point, Stephen.
I should (and will) work on a list of poems published in ONE ART that provide more clarity about the types of poems likely to "fit".
The problem / fear is dissuading someone from sending something that I would love but would have no way of predicting. You know?
In the ONE ART guidelines, I offer a list of "Representative Poets" as well as "Poets who exemplify the range of work ONE ART is seeking" ... but your average person probably is not going to scroll that far into the guidelines ...
https://oneartpoetry.com/submissions/
I think that your submission site is an incredible resource. There is nothing like it. The representative lists should convey to anyone that your editorial disposition acknowledges the vast array of poetic voices in our midst today. At times I feel as though I have limited opportunity to find a fit as I am an older white male whose writing in some sense was informed by an earlier generation of poets who emerged post 1950s. There are poets on your list that would give me some confidence that my work would not be declined out of hand. Still, I know of a poet who has published numerous books of poetry, who has also received Guggenheim and NEA fellowships and other awards and prizes such as the James Dickey Prize who I think feels out of step in the current climate. But I acknowledge that this might be the nature of the arts in general as one generation emerges as a previous begins to pass on. I noted that Ted Kooser is on one of your lists. I hope that folks have looked closely at the career of Galway Kinnell and Anne Sexton. Put another way, how obligated is an editor of a journal or a press to have a grasp of, say, 20th century poetry? Apologies if I have gone too far beyond what you are asking for. I can only hope that it is useful somehow. Whether one dollar or three, one is not only supporting hard working readers and editors. One must keep in mind that their efforts help poets to find an audience. I do, however, have issues with some contests and their fees. By the way, I do appreciate your being open to good stuff that might not be the best fit for your journal.
Stephen
Thanks for this thoughtful response, Stephen. I saw it late last night and decided to sleep on it. Lots to unpack here.
I've been hearing similar statements since I became more seriously involved in the literary community in 2009. Statements about men, particularly white men, feeling like we live in a time when work that feels "of another time" is not appreciated. I don't think it's anti-DEI or anything of that sort, I think people don't mean to come off badly with this kind of statement, though unfortunately it tends not to sit well.
The poetry community (and larger literary community) has expanded so much that I'm confident there are niche groups for everyone.
Ted Kooser is a terrific poet though his work may not feel "exciting" for all audiences. To each their own.
I'm fairly confident a majority of serious contemporary poets have had at least mild exposure to Sexton's work. I can't say the same for Kinnell.
I'm torn about "required reading" nowadays. In part because we're always standing on the shoulders of giants. So, even when a poet does not directly realize their influences, those influences have provided them with the language and tools to build off of.
Duotrope currently lists 7,608 publishers/markets. Finding your current audience has become harder. I don't think that's in question. I believe many will feel similarly. That they struggle to find Community and readership.
Doing my best to provide a good Community space with ONE ART.
Verse-Virtual has created a friendly space.
There are many examples...
We could all do a better job of sharing resources/information so that others can find spaces that are best suited to them/their work.
Mark--Your perspectives on these matters, which I value, are critical for things to progress. I fear that ideas about poetry may be a bit narrow and less fluid these days. I see in journals here and there interest in experimental poetry. Therefore, I would hope that they might know a little about the work of, say, Robert Creeley. Anyway, I admit I am becoming a bit cranky in my old age. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Stephen
I'm for a submission fee as well.I would say a fee of $5 for a max of three poems isn't unreasonable in this day and age.Writer may expect a word or two from the editor if the piece is rejected.I also favour keeping the donation option open.We appreciate your hard work Mark.
Some lit mags do offer the "service" of commentary for those who tip/pay to submit. Something about that rubs me a little wrong... If I have the knowledge/feedback to share... I should probably simply share, right? Seems unfair to withhold just because someone did not tip... I give feedback when I feel there is something useful to share. I've learned just how tricky that is because all too often any feedback with a rejection seems to result in people feeling the sting of rejection even more so... I certainly don't want to double down on the pain even if my intentions are good.
Sorry, but I do not pay to submit. I will never do so.
I can just about afford it but I do this on principle. There are other writers out there who cannot afford to pay at all.
There are other models. Patreon for example.
I fully respect your position.
You are correct that there are other routes.
A better route, for example, might be NPR-style fundraising to offset costs.
In this case, I'm seeking to dissuade people from sending submissions that are not even close to aligned with the the journal. This is a problem for all lit mags since forever (snail mail days included).
It's tricky here because I'm trying to be friendly to poets/writers but the result is I'm causing myself grief by making the submission process so simple/appealing.
One could argue that it is counter-intuitive to pay a publication to print a piece of literature in order to make money, recognizing of course that many small literary magazine struggle to cover costs rather that make a profit! As an individual who began submitting poetry in the 70s and 80's, submission fees were rare to small independent presses. However, submissions did require SASE photocopying costs and postage, so they were hardly free. Whether presses should impose a "reading" fee, or whether they should request a donation for those capable of affording to do so would be my question.
Yeah it's often pointed out that snail mail subs with SASE were similar if not more expensive (given inflation) to $3. But the lit mag did not stand to gain anything in that scenario.
It's hard to compare to a time before electronic submissions because there is so much less friction.
I did a decent amount of snail mail subs in the early 2010s and it felt more meaningful but was also a hassle. The cost of supplies, printing, SASE, going to the post office. There is a nice ritualistic element... I wish we could bring back some of the ritual but it's really positive that we've taken away the burden of entry.
Well said Mark, not only did the publisher not benefit financially, but he/she had to play Santa and trek to the post office with a bag full of SASE on a regular basis. I do agree that there was a tactile thrill in opening the mail to see if you were accepted. Much more pleasurable than opening an email or often never hearing anything.
Agreed about the "tactile thrill", especially in our tech heavy world.