There’s
no doubt that Submittable has revolutionised the process of submitting poetry
to journals over the last few years, both for poets and for editors. It’s
terrific for the former, who are able to make submissions in minutes, follow
their progress and keep track of what they’ve sent where, rather than relying
on spreadsheets or trawling through emails. And then it’s also extremely useful
for the latter, enabling them to free up their email inboxes, structure their reading
in terms of drawing up long and short lists, and ensure stuff doesn’t get left
behind.
Moreover, the use of Submittable appears to have involuntarily generated certain
trends in terms of the poetry that journals are publishing, due mainly to the
vastly increased numbers of submissions that its ease of use has encouraged.
For example, if a single, individual editor receives over 18,000 poems a year
via Submittable (a reasonable figure for certain major magazines, as indicated
to me in private by a couple of those editors), their attitude to accepting or
rejecting those poems inevitably changes, whether they admit it to themselves
or not. The consequence seems to be that Submittable’s use lends itself to
poems that generate an immediate impact, given the editor has seconds to view
each poem on the screen before making an initial decision whether to hold or
dismiss the piece in question.
In
this context, it’s also worthwhile for poets to put themselves in an editor’s
(or magazine publisher’s) shoes. With the current rules of play, some poets
boast on social media of having a dozen or more subs on the go at any one time,
often using a scattergun approach because they have no skin in any journal’s
game.
And then many poets simply see magazines as an outlet for the work rather
than as an integral part of the creative process of discovering new work by contemporaries,
of keeping up with the scene. They fail to recognise that poets and editors
should sit around a metaphorical table rather than stare each other down from
opposing sides of a decrepit fence, the former bombarding the latter with subs
and then wondering why communication breaks down.
Some
editors are thus changing the way they use Submittable, operating with
submission windows. The latter option might reduce impromptu,
spur-of-the-moment, chuck-a-few-poems-their way subs, but it still tends to provoke
an absolute avalanche of subs as soon as the window is opened, often leading
to it being closed abruptly once the journal’s limit with the platform is
reached.
Another option is charging for poets to send their work in via
Submittable, justifying this payment in the context of the fees that magazines
themselves have to pay for use of the platform. These submission charges are
typical in the States, but highly controversial in the U.K., not least because
of the consequent implicit exclusion of poets who have limited financial means.
What
might be a potential solution? Well, in order to find a solution, it’s best to
identify and address the problem. And the problem, from my perspective, isn’t
Submittable as such, rather the fact that its emergence has coincided with a worsening
of the age-old issue that there are too many writers and not enough readers of
poetry, thus creating a perfect storm.
Everyone
wants to be published in print-based journals and no one wants to buy them. For
instance, let’s imagine that 18,000 poems a year equate to about 5,000 poets submitting,
If all of them bought an issue of the magazine in question, the mag would be
able to pay its way. And just imagine if half of them then went on to
subscribe! The financial sums involved aren’t inconsequential – they might even
reach the equivalent of many ACE grants.
So
why not take Candlestick Press’ example and apply it to major journals? They
stipulate that (unless you are a concession or suffering financial hardship)
any poet who wishes to take part a Candlestick competition should first buy one
of their pamphlets. Or what about Rattle, who include a year’s subscription in
their admittedly hefty competition entry fee? Or Crannog, who request the
purchase of their current issue by any submitter who’s never previously been
published by them? This condition also means that the poet in question receives
a good dose of contemporary poetry in return for submitting, keeping something
tangible that they can read even if their work fails to be accepted.
Underlining,
of course, that it’s crucial to put in place measures to avoid the problem of
potentially excluding poets of limited means (by detailing a list of
exemptions), I see no reason why many print-based journals shouldn’t follow a similar policy. Bearing
in mind that most magazine guidelines state that poets should read an issue
before subbing (and many poets ignore that advice completely), such a system
would provide them immediately with loads of excellent preparatory material.
Furthermore,
fewer submissions would arrive via Submittable, meaning that editors would no
longer be so overwhelmed, while the poets’ engagement with the magazine would
also be greater! This process wouldn’t only ensure a greater commitment on the
part of the submitting poet,but also longer print runs, stronger sales and
continuity of the journal beyond endless funding applications. What do you
think?!
If
you can’t be bothered to read a print-based magazine, do you deserve to be published by
it?!
