Mark, I will say it took me a while for my work to be accepted by ONE ART. But your constant encouragement made me study the poems you were publishing and carefully craft work to be submitted that aligned with your lit mag's style and tone. Thank you for pushing me to work harder.
Thank you, Barbara! I love what you shared! This makes me happy -- and I'm confident this is true of all editors -- specifically with regards to studying the journal and learning the "style and tone".
Ha! I submitted 8 times before my first OneArt turn. Forty five times to Rattle before my first (and over 400(!) since). SMH that folks don't understand that even if their poems are "good" and the curator likes their work, the odds are still in favor of their work being passed on.
It doesn't make sense to me that poets cannot put themselves in the places of curators. After all, so much of poetry has to do with empathy. The poet is, in effect, inducing empathy in the reader. Perhaps curators should require one poem in every sub to be a persona poem from an editor's POV. 😂😇❤️
I have a theory that poets who exclusively write poetry have a different perspective than those who write in other genres.
Fiction has historically been more strict with submission rules. I think others will agree?
Prominent fiction writers will openly acknowledge they still receive many rejections before placing a new story. It's expected. 25 rejections is normal. I heard someone say recently that after around 25 rejections is when they decide to consider making changes. Poets should really think hard about this. I think most poets will make rewrites much sooner... or simply abandon a piece (or at the very least set it aside). In any case, thinking about reworking a 2500-10000 word story vs. tweaking a 100 word poem. I'm not saying one is easier than the other by any means. Both are time consuming. I'm not saying poets are lazy.
I am saying that poets need to manage their expectations.
Also, reading a TON of poems, the amount of redundancy is wild. Any editor who reads a lot of submissions can acknowledge this. We all exist in the zeitgeist, in our time, and we can't help but write similarly in our shared reality (or at least where our sense of reality overlaps... since it is increasingly fragmented which is another issue altogether).
I dunno, Mark. In some respects, all times are unprecedented and none are. There have been pandemics - but not in the time of Zoom. There have been dumb as rocks autocrats surrounded by effective operatives but not in the US.
Not to be a nerd (but I can't help it!), but it also depends on how granular (or not) your time frame is. This very moment I am in is unprecedented. No one has typed these words in this order. But plenty have said the same thing!
Absolutely re redundancy. Reading for Gyroscope, I can vouch for this. I'm not saying it as a bad thing, but agreeing with you. So it makes sense that we don't want the whole journal filled with octopus poems (a nonsensical example since that actually sounds fun!). Thanks, Mark and Dick, for sharing your perspectives. Often we get really good poems that we reject just because they're redundant.
Hey Mark ❣️ Very fair, very right comment. Seems rude to write something like that on a submission. That said, aside from of course reading the lit mag, have you got suggestions for serious would bes on how to judge which journals might be a good fit?. I think some reflection on this might be quite useful. Take care. Lenore
I appreciate you saying it seems rude. I'm planning to share a piece in this series on what I'd consider mild (sometimes not so mild) forms of emotional abuse that I (and certainly other editors) have experienced.
They way I judge is by reading recent issues of the journal (which is complicated by print only rags). It took me a while to understand (for example, many of my early subs to OneArt were wayyyyy longer than they ever share). I also look for style. Are they experimental (I generally, am not). Are they ideological? If so they are not a fit for me.
I love the “this is my 9th submission” point. I’m always flabbergasted when someone’s work is turned down for the nth time, (usually with kind and constructive comments) and twenty minutes later they submit a new piece that was waiting in the wings.
I think we've all been there, haven't we? It takes a while to build strong bones in this business, and there can be a lot of frustration along the way. There are journals I've been subbing for years - many more than nine times - without any luck. But never vent frustration on the editors. That won't get you very far!
When I was less experienced I may have written a snarky reply or two before I understood how this world works. Not to excuse such remarks, just to say I've done dumb shit too.
To often journals focus on very narrow preferences. For writers, there are too many boxes to fit into. To adapt a writing style, or the natural trajectory of style and approach simply to suit a particular publication can be disingenuous, or a sell out. By the 9th rejection, if I ever experience it, will either make me close that door on that option, or wait until until there is a change in focus, and or editor.
Don, I appreciate what you're saying. Especially what you say about making changes specifically to suit a lit mag's style/tone etc & it being disingenuous. I agree.
There is something to say for small changes to suit a particular journal's aesthetic.
For One Sentence Poems, the poem "Start with an uppercase letter, as sentences do." Also, "End with a terminal punctuation mark." There's more but you get the point.
I don't think it's selling out in any way to **slightly** change a poem that is already basically a sentence with line breaks and adjust it. (Problematically, this poem may already be way too prose-like but that's another issue altogether.) The line breaks should still have important attention to the value of The Line since that is a key aspect of lineated poems.
I wonder if e.e. cummings would agree. Certainly some formatting requirements are fine and an author can decide to submit or not submit. These restrictions are not too onerous, at worse it would be the teacher's ruler across the back of the hand.
I like that journals have an aesthetic. As a poet it's up to me to find a place where my poem might feel at home. I am not going to rewrite a poem to match a journal's leanings but if I like the poems they publish, I will search my catalogue for ones that fit.
I have 100s (and 100s) of poems that would not fit in OneArt and maybe dozens that do. Also, I've learned from reading OneArt what my work mighty do differently. Same with Rattle and ONLY POEMS and 23 Poems and and and. They all have something to teach me and, if I lucky, I will write one good enough for their curators to take a sending look and maybe include!
For me, there is no shame in being turned down. It just encourages me to look at my work again and probably make some changes, big or small. Or to try a different mag. I don't see the point in being angry at an editor. They're receiving hundreds of submissions. Wasted energy, IMHO.
I just wrote a piece on rejection as a writer, but I think one of the key parts that has helped me get more acceptances is taking a break from submitting to the same magazines and focusing on my craft before submitting again - this is a great piece of advice!
Poets/writers would do well to take a breather and reflect about their objectives/goals with regards to submissions from time to time.
A piece of advice I can't given often enough is to focus on lit mags that align with your work and intentions as opposed to top tier / heritage journals that you can name check. Do you real those journals? If not, why do you want to see your name, your work in them?
I'd love to know your thoughts about found / erasure / cento poetry. I'm writing lots of found poems, but don't see many journals accepting them. What do you (or others) think?
I hear you, Jamal. I know it's frustrating. That desire for feedback is real and understandable. Unfortunately, it's just not realistic (or appropriate in many instances) for editors to provide feedback. I say appropriate because a rejection of a poet's work, which is often extremely personal, can feel like you as a person are being rejected. Additional input feels to some like you're punching someone while they're down.
Workshops and critique circles make the issue of feedback more clear. Writers often say they want the truth and, as the cliche goes, they really cannot handle the truth. There is another common cliche about opinions (everyone has one) and so poets/writers need to learn how to receive feedback and make good use of it.
In short, specific feedback from an editor who is rejection work is often going to feel unhelpful and may do more harm than good.
I think one way is to dig deep into the journal's archive and try to understand the poetics and aesthetics of the curators. Read read read. How do the poems curated differ from yours? What craft do they exhibit that yours might be missing?
I think Rattle's Critique of the Week is a good place to listen to how others see poems, what their strengths are and their weaknesses? I listen every week and learn new things about my own work as I read others and listen to Tim and the other readers.
Thanks Dick for your input and advise.Critique of the week at Rattle is indeed a wonderful way to learn what works and what doesn't in poetry.I also listen to it frequently but it's not easy for a nonagenarian to dig up all the nuggets at one time but I'm at it.
Mark, I will say it took me a while for my work to be accepted by ONE ART. But your constant encouragement made me study the poems you were publishing and carefully craft work to be submitted that aligned with your lit mag's style and tone. Thank you for pushing me to work harder.
Thank you, Barbara! I love what you shared! This makes me happy -- and I'm confident this is true of all editors -- specifically with regards to studying the journal and learning the "style and tone".
Ha! I submitted 8 times before my first OneArt turn. Forty five times to Rattle before my first (and over 400(!) since). SMH that folks don't understand that even if their poems are "good" and the curator likes their work, the odds are still in favor of their work being passed on.
It doesn't make sense to me that poets cannot put themselves in the places of curators. After all, so much of poetry has to do with empathy. The poet is, in effect, inducing empathy in the reader. Perhaps curators should require one poem in every sub to be a persona poem from an editor's POV. 😂😇❤️
I have a theory that poets who exclusively write poetry have a different perspective than those who write in other genres.
Fiction has historically been more strict with submission rules. I think others will agree?
Prominent fiction writers will openly acknowledge they still receive many rejections before placing a new story. It's expected. 25 rejections is normal. I heard someone say recently that after around 25 rejections is when they decide to consider making changes. Poets should really think hard about this. I think most poets will make rewrites much sooner... or simply abandon a piece (or at the very least set it aside). In any case, thinking about reworking a 2500-10000 word story vs. tweaking a 100 word poem. I'm not saying one is easier than the other by any means. Both are time consuming. I'm not saying poets are lazy.
I am saying that poets need to manage their expectations.
Also, reading a TON of poems, the amount of redundancy is wild. Any editor who reads a lot of submissions can acknowledge this. We all exist in the zeitgeist, in our time, and we can't help but write similarly in our shared reality (or at least where our sense of reality overlaps... since it is increasingly fragmented which is another issue altogether).
You make me want to write a poem called "In these unprecedented times."
I say go for it! That being said, I hope you'd acknowledge in the poem how much of what is happening is indeed precedented.
Here ya go:
In These Unprecedented Times The Poetry Editor Speaks
.
.
Today I’ve read fifteen poems with the word
“cocksucker.” Another ten say “fuck” fifteen times.
.
Five today rhyme “Trump” with “chump”
and eleven are nursery tunes.
.
This one’s a ghazal for a fallen nation. I like
the title but the radifs are lame. This one speaks
.
of “lantern hung stars” which is kinda cliche
but rest of the poem is OK. Here’s
.
rant about climate change. I like the message
but its not a poem and goes on and on and on and on way way too long.
.
Here’s an email from a guy whose work I rejected
twelve times telling me my journal sucks and I do too.
.
I tell him, in these unprecedented times I won’t take
any poem with cliches,
.
and not even read ones with
Trump named more than once.
😂 😂 😂 needed this !!
I dunno, Mark. In some respects, all times are unprecedented and none are. There have been pandemics - but not in the time of Zoom. There have been dumb as rocks autocrats surrounded by effective operatives but not in the US.
Not to be a nerd (but I can't help it!), but it also depends on how granular (or not) your time frame is. This very moment I am in is unprecedented. No one has typed these words in this order. But plenty have said the same thing!
It's a Schrödinger's cat situation.
Absolutely re redundancy. Reading for Gyroscope, I can vouch for this. I'm not saying it as a bad thing, but agreeing with you. So it makes sense that we don't want the whole journal filled with octopus poems (a nonsensical example since that actually sounds fun!). Thanks, Mark and Dick, for sharing your perspectives. Often we get really good poems that we reject just because they're redundant.
First, love your persona poem jest. I dare you! :P
I'm thinking of the poem Tim talks often about by Francesca Bell... which really gets the submitter's perspective across effectively.
https://www.rattle.com/i-long-to-hold-the-poetry-editors-penis-in-my-hand-by-francesca-bell/
Yes, Francesca's poem is a banger (no pun intended). She is the most daring poet I know.
You're right about the empathy question.
Hey Mark ❣️ Very fair, very right comment. Seems rude to write something like that on a submission. That said, aside from of course reading the lit mag, have you got suggestions for serious would bes on how to judge which journals might be a good fit?. I think some reflection on this might be quite useful. Take care. Lenore
I appreciate you saying it seems rude. I'm planning to share a piece in this series on what I'd consider mild (sometimes not so mild) forms of emotional abuse that I (and certainly other editors) have experienced.
Shannan Mann’s eight dimensions are useful: https://www.theforeverworkshop.com/p/how-to-match-your-writing-to-the. But to the extent that I’m good at this,* I think it’s from having taken apart a lot of very different poetry.
* Depressingly, I’m much better at it with other people’s work.
Yeah, Shannan's list is good. I'm with you about being able to do this for others better than with my own work. I'm sure that's standard.
They way I judge is by reading recent issues of the journal (which is complicated by print only rags). It took me a while to understand (for example, many of my early subs to OneArt were wayyyyy longer than they ever share). I also look for style. Are they experimental (I generally, am not). Are they ideological? If so they are not a fit for me.
I love the “this is my 9th submission” point. I’m always flabbergasted when someone’s work is turned down for the nth time, (usually with kind and constructive comments) and twenty minutes later they submit a new piece that was waiting in the wings.
Karen, do say more! I think I'm missing an important point here about the piece "waiting in the wings"
I think we've all been there, haven't we? It takes a while to build strong bones in this business, and there can be a lot of frustration along the way. There are journals I've been subbing for years - many more than nine times - without any luck. But never vent frustration on the editors. That won't get you very far!
Like you said, Marc, it's not going to get you anywhere -- certainly not in good graces -- by trying to twist the editor's arm.
When I was less experienced I may have written a snarky reply or two before I understood how this world works. Not to excuse such remarks, just to say I've done dumb shit too.
To often journals focus on very narrow preferences. For writers, there are too many boxes to fit into. To adapt a writing style, or the natural trajectory of style and approach simply to suit a particular publication can be disingenuous, or a sell out. By the 9th rejection, if I ever experience it, will either make me close that door on that option, or wait until until there is a change in focus, and or editor.
Don, I appreciate what you're saying. Especially what you say about making changes specifically to suit a lit mag's style/tone etc & it being disingenuous. I agree.
There is something to say for small changes to suit a particular journal's aesthetic.
Consider the guidelines for One Sentence Poems.
https://www.onesentencepoems.com/submit
For One Sentence Poems, the poem "Start with an uppercase letter, as sentences do." Also, "End with a terminal punctuation mark." There's more but you get the point.
I don't think it's selling out in any way to **slightly** change a poem that is already basically a sentence with line breaks and adjust it. (Problematically, this poem may already be way too prose-like but that's another issue altogether.) The line breaks should still have important attention to the value of The Line since that is a key aspect of lineated poems.
I wonder if e.e. cummings would agree. Certainly some formatting requirements are fine and an author can decide to submit or not submit. These restrictions are not too onerous, at worse it would be the teacher's ruler across the back of the hand.
I like that journals have an aesthetic. As a poet it's up to me to find a place where my poem might feel at home. I am not going to rewrite a poem to match a journal's leanings but if I like the poems they publish, I will search my catalogue for ones that fit.
I have 100s (and 100s) of poems that would not fit in OneArt and maybe dozens that do. Also, I've learned from reading OneArt what my work mighty do differently. Same with Rattle and ONLY POEMS and 23 Poems and and and. They all have something to teach me and, if I lucky, I will write one good enough for their curators to take a sending look and maybe include!
Yes to all this, Dick.
For me, there is no shame in being turned down. It just encourages me to look at my work again and probably make some changes, big or small. Or to try a different mag. I don't see the point in being angry at an editor. They're receiving hundreds of submissions. Wasted energy, IMHO.
Great attitude, Laurie, and it's appreciated!
I just wrote a piece on rejection as a writer, but I think one of the key parts that has helped me get more acceptances is taking a break from submitting to the same magazines and focusing on my craft before submitting again - this is a great piece of advice!
Taking a break is helpful, no question.
Poets/writers would do well to take a breather and reflect about their objectives/goals with regards to submissions from time to time.
A piece of advice I can't given often enough is to focus on lit mags that align with your work and intentions as opposed to top tier / heritage journals that you can name check. Do you real those journals? If not, why do you want to see your name, your work in them?
I'd love to know your thoughts about found / erasure / cento poetry. I'm writing lots of found poems, but don't see many journals accepting them. What do you (or others) think?
Ooh, thanks for the suggestion Jennifer! I'll plan to write a post on this :)
Ooh, thanks for the suggestion Jennifer! I'll plan to write a post on this :)
It's hard to know what I'm doing wrong or disagreeable in a poem without any input from the editor.It's easy to get attached to your own work.
I hear you, Jamal. I know it's frustrating. That desire for feedback is real and understandable. Unfortunately, it's just not realistic (or appropriate in many instances) for editors to provide feedback. I say appropriate because a rejection of a poet's work, which is often extremely personal, can feel like you as a person are being rejected. Additional input feels to some like you're punching someone while they're down.
Workshops and critique circles make the issue of feedback more clear. Writers often say they want the truth and, as the cliche goes, they really cannot handle the truth. There is another common cliche about opinions (everyone has one) and so poets/writers need to learn how to receive feedback and make good use of it.
In short, specific feedback from an editor who is rejection work is often going to feel unhelpful and may do more harm than good.
I think one way is to dig deep into the journal's archive and try to understand the poetics and aesthetics of the curators. Read read read. How do the poems curated differ from yours? What craft do they exhibit that yours might be missing?
I think Rattle's Critique of the Week is a good place to listen to how others see poems, what their strengths are and their weaknesses? I listen every week and learn new things about my own work as I read others and listen to Tim and the other readers.
I need to remember to nudge more poets towards Rattle's Critique of the Week.
This is an amazing FREE service that Tim offers.
https://www.rattle.com/critique/
Thanks Mark for your comments.I also appreciated thoughts from Dick.
Thanks Dick for your input and advise.Critique of the week at Rattle is indeed a wonderful way to learn what works and what doesn't in poetry.I also listen to it frequently but it's not easy for a nonagenarian to dig up all the nuggets at one time but I'm at it.