Poetry submissions in the Submittable era

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?!