After Duotrope, I have found this to be the best resource for new calls for submission. The Creative Writers Opportunities List (or CWROPPS) is a 13,000 + Yahoo Group moderated by poet and editor Allison Joseph. The group was created in 2005, though I have not been a member quite that long.
A new list is emailed to subscribers daily unless the moderator is on hiatus (which happens to be the case this week). Since this is a “list,” you cannot run a search. The list contains calls for submissions, contests, writing residencies, and creative writing job opportunities for poetry, fiction, and creative non-fiction. A brief description of each item, which is provided by the person who submitted the item, is included. Web sites for further information for each listing are also provided.
If you like culling information from a paragraph of text rather than a format such as Duotrope uses, CWROPPS will appeal to you.
You may subscribe to the list by emailing: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thanks to the editors at Sweet Tree Review for including my poem in the latest issue. http://www.sweettreereview.com/scent-claudia-stanek
Before you read the next post in this series, I need to clarify that these “picks” and the posts from Michael Meyerhofer, Donna Marbach, and today’s editor Tom Holmes, are entirely in their words and not mine. I may agree with some, all or most of the opinions expressed here but I have not officially weighed in on the subject yet. On to Tom Holmes:
There are so many great journals out there, so some of my answers will look instead at the design and layout of each journal, because I want my work to be in a good looking journal. Of course, each of the below journals (in no order) publishes very fine work.
- Passages North. An oversized 10″x7″ journal with terrific covers that seduce me. Their poetry fits somewhere between accessible and heady. It challenges me, but doesn’t exhaust me.
- Istanbul Review. Terrific layout. Each author gets a page for a bio that precedes their work. They have color artwork. And there are black tabs indicating genre and author’s name. They aren’t afraid to publish other languages with their own alphabets, like Bengali, or afraid to print pieces that swirl on the page. It’s a delight to thumb through or read cover to cover.
- Sheepshead Review. The issue I’m looking at is Volume 37, Number 2. The 6.5″x8.5″ pages have black borders. It frames the poetry and prose like they are artwork. And the titles are in red. It’s so nice to see color in a journal, which is an expensive endeavor. Plus, there are full black pages with color artwork. Moving through the pages, the eye is stimulated.
- Rock & Sling. If you want a good course in layout and design, check out this journal out of Whitworth University. They have a good proportion of margin space, exacting leading in the text, and they like to explore their typefaces. It’s a journal of witness, so the poems have a religious-leaning, but they aren’t afraid to publish work from atheists. They truly explore faith from all angles.
- Atticus Review. This is one of my favorite online journals. I’m biased towards print journals, but what I like about Atticus Review is not only the wide variety of work, but how they have a featured poet every month or so, which includes a handful of poems from the poet plus an interview. I love when poets talk about their poetry, so I especially appreciate this.
- The Cincinnati Review. Editor Don Bogen knows how to find great writing, as The Cincinnati Review’s work often appears in Pushcart. If you want a journal that consistently publishes a wide range of styles and fine work, check out this journal.
- Rattle. The poems here are grounded and challenging. Plus, they and editor Timothy Green are fully engaged in bringing poetry to the masses. Check out their website, too.
- Miramar. I’m looking at Number 3 from 2015. Man, it’s like an anthology with 188 pages and 86 authors. How do they fit so many well-known poets beside so many up-and-coming poets, I don’t know, but it’s something you can enjoy for a long reading session.
- Iowa Review. If you want to be on the edge of what poetry is doing, you kind of have to read this journal. It’s essential.
- Sugar House Review. This is my favorite journal. They’ve been around for about eight years, and they started with a bang, with poems in Pushcart their first two years.
When I’m looking for poetry journals, I’m usually looking for what newness does the journal bring to poetry. So I’m looking for more than just terrific poetry. I’m looking for inventive poetry. Sometimes the invention comes in the form of images (like Miramar), style (like Cincinnati Review), pushing language (like Iowa Review), or having fun (like Sugar House Review and Rattle). I want surprise, even if the poem overall isn’t fully successful. I crave a consistent movement to the unexpected. I want the Gomer Pyle aesthetic: Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
Tom Holmes is the editor of Redactions: Poetry & Poetics and is the author of seven collections of poetry, most recently The Cave, which won The Bitter Oleander Press Library of Poetry Book Award for 2013. His writings about wine, poetry book reviews, and poetry can be found at his blog, The Line Break: http://thelinebreak.wordpress.
If you’ve been submitting your chapbook manuscript and watching your bank account shrink because of reading fees, this question may be on your mind. Here are some thoughts on the subject from my own experience and observation.
Over the past 10 years, the world of publishing has been inundated with MFA graduates, most with at least a chapbook-sized creative thesis presumed to be ready for publication. That was me in 2007. When my final mentor at Bennington told me, when asked, that about 50% of my creative thesis would make for a good manuscript, my first thought was “Oh, chapbook.” That was not meant in the most positive way at that time.
Like so many others of the pre-millenial generation, I was skeptical of the merit of chapbooks. Several friends had chapbooks published by very, very small presses and had tales of woe about doing their own marketing, chasing down reading venues, etc. However, over the past 15 years the chapbook has become a highly respectable means of publication, with more presses including chapbook titles in their catalogs. This trend encourages more poets to complete chapbook manuscripts rather than full-length collections, as did I after five years of struggling with the issue.
Then there is the cost of producing a printed chapbook. Most contest fees cover the cost, but for publishers that do not run contests, have no major outside funding, or require no reading fees, the number of chapbooks they can produce is smaller. Even those publishers that operate under the contest model are less likely to opt to publish additional manuscripts from the list of non-winning finalists than in times past. Thankfully for me, the judge of Bright Hill’s 2013 chapbook contest selected my chapbook and another as co-winners and Bright Hill was gracious enough to publish both.
Another element is the increasing popularity of publishing ebooks rather than print. It may be difficult for some poets (again, of certain generations) to consider ebooks equivalent to the printed page, despite the fact that an online presence has the potential to reach far more readers than a 200 book print run.
There is also a growing market for multi-media publishing to which some publishers are migrating, mostly in the digital realm, as more technologically savvy editors assume their roles as those decision-makers.
Another factor is timing. Poets & Writers runs an annual feature introducing new poets with first books. While these are not chapbooks, there is one similarity to be observed. Few of those chosen for this special section had their manuscripts picked up immediately. For many it was several years. I was thrilled that I had only submitted my chapbook to 15 publishers/contests over the course of seven months prior to it winning at Bright Hill.
Finally, it all comes down to the ultimate decision-maker, be that an editor or a judge. There is no way to predict how many wonderful manuscripts are read and dismissed or passed along for the decision-maker to select just one.
When I began submitting my chapbook, I knew I was competing against some of my friends with strong manuscripts in very different writing styles and I even shared being a finalist with one of them. I told myself to give it a year and then to consider other options. I would advise that you do the same, submitting to as many places as possible, both financially and aesthetically, for at least a full year.
I hope these thoughts help to ease your frustration.
I attended several panels on publication, a panel on the sonnet (in case you don’t know, my graduate lecture was about the modern sonnet), a panel on revision, another on translation and a very interesting panel on balancing work for an arts organization with the creative life.
Panels on publication were among the best-attended, as if there were a secret system for getting one’s work accepted. There isn’t. These panels reinforced common sense: Treat your work and the editors with respect and complete professionalism. Know the publications to which you send your work, which means read or subscribe to those publications. Send only your best, completed work. If you are still revising, you’re sending it out too soon. Do not send anything that is cliché or slick. Do not make the assumption “big-named” journals are the best. Do send work with a strong voice that begs the reader to keep reading and re-reading. Learn how to submit online. Online submissions are far more the norm than postal submissions.
Several editors reported receiving submissions anywhere from four to five figures, which can lead to a hefty backlog. Many of these publications report acceptances at a rate less than .50 of 1%. Keep these figures in mind when you send your work to the most “popular” publications.
I’ll discuss some of the other panels and the book fair in upcoming posts.
Here is an interesting note from Michael Nye, Managing Editor of the Missouri Review: http://www.missourireview.com/tmr-blog/2014/09/ethics-publishing-literary-journals/
If you have worked on staff at a literary magazine, what is your opinion?
Friday opens the 2014 Fall reading season, the most opportune time for poets to have their work considered for publication by the largest number of journals seeking unsolicited submissions. The floodgates at Submittable, Submission Manager, Tell It Slant as well as the inboxes on editors’ desks and emails open beginning August 1 through September 15.
What you can expect to see this fall: Sadly, there will be an increase in the number of publications requiring reading fees in order to consider your work. No, these are not contest fees. Despite what some journals like to call their fees, they are money required for a journal’s staff to read the work you submit to them, hence “reading fees.” Reading fees that journals charge range from $1 per submission (usually 3-5 poems) to $10 per submission. The former and latter are very rare; reading fees in the 2013-2014 reading period averaged $3 per submission.
There will still be plenty of publications reading for free. Personally, as a poet, I am more inclined to support a journal without reading fees. But we need to be open to paying a journal for the privilege of reading our work. It stings. Poets rarely get paid when their work is accepted for publication. However, many journals are staffed by volunteers who believe in the value of literary pursuit and find fulfillment in publishing our work. I can much more easily accept not being paid for my work when I know the editors choosing to publish it have no monetary gain to do so.
What else? Expect an increase in online submissions with a corresponding decrease in postal submissions. This is not a new trend. Online submissions will continue to grow for the foreseeable future.
Finally, is the migration of more publications to the internet from print. Cost is the greatest driver behind this movement. Migrating away from print is not a bad thing. Consider how many potential readers your work may reach on the internet when published by a quality online journal as opposed to the number of potential readers finding your work in print.
What does this mean for Poetic Effect? Fall reading will be as busy as ever. Calendar slots will fill quickly. If you are interested in having submissions of your work prepared during fall reading, email me Claudia@poeticeffect.com to reserve your place in the queue. Reservations are on a first-come, first-served basis.
The fall calendar has been rapidly filling with poetry readings, classes, and publications.
Here in Rochester, the second Fringe Festival begins this weekend. A group of poets, led by Wanda Schubmehl, will be reading the work generated from her latest project–a poetry chain gang. Participating poets responded to one poem from another participating poet. The poem generated was then be passed along to another poet. None of us (yes, I am a participant!) saw any other poem than the one given to each of us until the project was completed. The reading will be this Saturday, September 21 at Writers & Books, 740 University Ave., Rochester, NY. We’ll start at 4:00 pm, so arrive early for the best seat! This is a free reading. As a result of Wanda’s efforts, FootHills Publishing will also produce a chapbook with all of our poems.
Please head over to Conte Online where my poem “14th. St., Buffalo, NY” appears. I am grateful to the editors for including my work and for asking me to record the poem being read in my voice, something I have not previously done. Let me know what you think. http://www.conteonline.net/issue0901/
As the fall 2013 reading period opens, I want to address the issue of online literary journals and the merits of having work published by them.
The most obvious benefit is the size of the potential audience. While print publications are, for the most part, quite limited in their press runs, online publications have the possibility of readership limited only by the scope of the Web. This potentiality is heavily augmented by the reach of social media: Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, blogs, RSS feeds, etc., where the Word of the Web spreads more quickly than the word of mouth ever could.
Another important consideration is the development of relationships with other poets, publishers, and editors outside of your immediate environs that can lead to further publication opportunities, invitations to read, and invitations to attend and/or lead workshops.
Then there is the Google factor. When a reader comes upon your work online, that reader is able to search the Internet for more of your work, an expanded bio, and your general reputation within the larger community of poetry.
Will your work be perceived as lesser in status by appearing online versus in print? The answer to that question differs with each reader. We all have that one friend or family member who refuses to enter the digital age but is that one person your target audience? Who is in your target audience? Could those individuals who might appreciate your work the most be the same people who spend their days connected to their technology simply because of its portability?
A friend says to you, “Hey, I just read the most awesome conceptual poem.” You ask, “So, can you lend me the mag?” She says, “No. But I can show it to you on my smart phone.” That poem is available for the reading anywhere there’s wireless, immediately.
An often-heard argument against online lit mags is their quality compared to print. I find this argument to be less valid as time progresses and as the quality of successful lit mags increases with each publication cycle. What matters and is key, is the reputation of the publication, whether in print or online.
Arguably, print publication is still far more desired for the purposes of academia, but even there the gap is closing.
Granted, online publication is never going to be the same as holding that perfect-bound journal in your hands. It is, however, the path of our words, at least until an electro-magnetic pulse shuts down everyone’s electricity.
I would be interested to read your feedback.
Last week, I did something I hoped I would never do. I paid a reading fee to a literary journal for the submission of my work.
I have made my feelings about reading fees clear in the past and they have not changed. Why would I break with my own protocol? I had prepared the submission file and begun the process with the journal’s online submission software and got to the point where payment appeared. I’ll admit to being torn. My initial reaction was to close the window and move on. But, I had questions. Would the non-contest reading fee this journal charges in any way make a difference in how my submission fared? Could I expect a more timely response?
I wanted answers that would only satisfy me from personal experience. So, I paid the $3.00, knowing it probably would not make a difference in how my submission would be handled and I took comfort that I was at least monetarily supporting the journal.
Just to reiterate my feelings about non-contest reading fees, I compare the trend to airline baggage fees. Once one airline started charging, others soon followed until just about every airline in existence now charges baggage fees. It is taking a bit longer to catch on in the publishing industry, but charging reading fees for non-contest submissions is undeniably a growing trend.
In theory, these reading fees should not be objectionable. Publishing poetry and other literary creative writing is not a money maker. Most journals exist from the desire of people who love quality literature and want to share that literature with the world. Noble. Admirable. We should be grateful for these people and the publications they produce, whether online or in print. I am grateful. Truly.
However, as a poet, I can tell you from personal experience that, for the most part, poetry does not pay monetarily. There is a bit of the sting of the pay-for-publication stigma, whether or not that sentiment is justified. Many wonderful poets can’t afford reading fees; they have a difficult time just paying their bills. What are the implications of excluding these poets? Will there be a difference in the quality of the poetry published due to a smaller submission pool?
As fall reading begins and new guidelines are being rolled out, I am monitoring the trend.
If you are an editor of a literary journal, please share your thoughts on this subject.