More on submissions

I probably have nothing of great value to add to the large number of excellent blog posts on this subject by proper poets, such as this fantastic one by Roy Marshall , but having experienced a few rejections this week, I wanted to record my feelings about poetry journals and their policies for soliciting and responding to submissions.

Firstly, much as rejections can smart, I do recognise that the editor usually has it much harder than the poet: most of them do this in their spare time, around other demanding commitments, for the sheer love of literature and provide an invaluable service to writers and readers for no material reward; most receive so many submissions on a weekly basis that they could probably wallpaper a lifesize model of the Titanic with them; most find rejecting work the most difficult part of their job; most regularly have their kindness abused by poets who submit without having read the journal to ascertain whether their work is at all suitable for it (and, in some cases, without ever having read any modern poetry, at all) or who try to engage in lengthy and disputatious to the point of abusive correspondence about the outcome of their submission.

Nonetheless, some publications do make the process of submission and acceptance or rejection less painful than others.

I do not expect editors to send a personal message to every rejected poet – the standard copy-and-paste job is sufficient and (and I know many will disagree with me here) I don’t even mind not getting a reply, at all, as long as the publication’s website has made clear that if you haven’t heard back by a certain date, you may consider yourself rejected and are free to submit elsewhere. Not letting you know by any means is a big no-no, though. And I have to confess that if editors do send a personalised and/or sensitively worded rejection, I am much more minded to submit to them again than to journals who send impersonal, MailMergey brush-offs. Gold stars go to Patricia Oxley at Acumen, whose enthusiastic, flattering rejection letters are more ego-boosting than some journals’ acceptances, and Michael Mackmin at The Rialto, who always used to add a highly personalised, handwritten note to every rejection, commenting on individual poems (although whether this personal touch has survived the migration to Submittable, I am yet to discover). What is particularly impressive is that these two journals receive huge numbers of submissions, many more than most of the journals who claim that individual responses are impossible.

How long is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response? I think anything up to six months is entirely reasonable and I am usually prepared to wait up to a year with no response before assuming the poems are free and can be submitted to another journal, but I’m probably more patient than a lot of poets. Much depends on what the submission guidelines say. If  a journal claims they normally get back to you within three months (or that weasel expression, “We AIM TO respond within three months.” WTF does that mean? I aim to be the most successful performance poet in the world and marry a 35-year-old toyboy, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen), I am usually prepared to wait four months before getting antsy.

I think, though, that there ought to be a small circle reserved in hell for editors who give totally misleading time estimates on their websites, or who fail to update their websites when circumstances change. I once chose to submit some poems to one particular journal, rather than others which were, in other respects, much more attractive, because its website boasted an impressive turnaround of six weeks. There then ensued six silent months when I heard not a peep from them and two polite e-mail enquiries went unanswered. Eventually I received a rejection from them, apologising for the delay and blaming it on real life intervening. I don’t think it was unreasonable for them to take that long to reply, but (a) I don’t think they should have posted such a hopelessly unrealistic turnaround estimate in the first place (b) once they knew they were experiencing a backlog, they really should have updated their website, so people already waiting for a reply knew what was going on and new submitters didn’t get sucked in by the totally false “six weeks” claim. I accept they were too busy to read any poems, but how long does it take to add one short sentence to your website, FFS? Unsurprisingly, I have never submitted to them again. I’ve also known journals that have folded not take down their websites or even add a five-word message informing visitors of the fact.

Nonetheless, there is such a thing as replying too fast, in my opinion. I recently had a rejection from a journal within twenty minutes of their opening my submission. While it did, at least, free the poems up to send elsewhere, I couldn’t even console myself with the fiction that they’d been tempted. That quick a decision normally means they think you’re terrible. And, yes, I know that a Submittable file that has been “In Progress” for several weeks is probably languishing unread in a  drawer, but you can at least imagine that they’re feverishly rereading it, wondering if they can possibly find space for it.

And, speaking of Submittable, I wish they wouldn’t display  “Declined” in glaring red font – every time I log into my account, I feel like a naughty schoolgirl who’s just got back some disappointing homework.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s