In my latest Barefoot Muse editorial, which is not quite ready to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting poetry world, I talk about MFAs and what advantage may be gained, fairly or otherwise, by obtaining one. As a corollary to that, here I want to talk about nepotism and anti-nepotism in Po-biz, phenomena that are certainly not confined to the circles of academia.
By nepotism I mean, of course, the selection of poems and/or poets (for publication or other awards) in which a prior relationship between the selector and the selectee is more important than the relative merit of the work. By anti-nepotism I mean the deliberate rejection of such work because of the existence of a prior negative relationship.
We don’t have to pore over the archives of Foetry to be aware that such things go on. In truth, nepotism is a part of life in every arena, so the idea that poets, typically among the more depraved and narcissistic components of society, might be above it is risible. The question becomes how to behave with honor and integrity in such a system, without consigning oneself to some form of untouchability.
I’ll begin with the example of the Barefoot Muse. On the eve of its sixth issue, my modest little journal has become a sought after online venue for would be formal poets, which makes me very happy. I received 875 poems to consider for this issue, which has me feeling slightly more ambivalent–remember, I have a staff of one. Furthermore, because I am the staff of one, there is no possibility of reading submissions blind, a procedure I would heartily endorse where possible. (See 14×14 for an excellent example of this put into practice.)
I therefore receive submissions regularly from poets with whom I have already had some form of interaction. The formal poetry world just isn’t that big, especially online. I mostly lurk at Eratosphere, but I certainly know of most of the poets who post there. I met the Modern Metrics crowd after reviewing their small press, and they subsequently invited me to read at their New York venue (Yes, I hear you. Mail me $5 and I’ll send you a copy of the CD–I’ll refund you if you truly think I did not deserve the honor.)
Now, those 875 submitted poems came from 220 individuals, most of whom I didn’t know from Adam. 19 of them came from people with whom I had had some form of prior relationship ranging from them being a former contributor of mine, to me being a former contributor of theirs, to us being personal local acquaintances. I rejected 11 of these people, accepted 6 on merit, and had 2 poems withdrawn. In the course of this I rejected 3 editors of journals (2 online and 1 small press) and 1 local poet who is far better known than I am.
The question is: am I a fool, or an idealist? Both, of course. Most of my acquaintances responded well to my decisions. I do typically write personal rejections to anyone who comes under the ‘prior relationship’ umbrella, which is more than many other journals of which I have experience from the other end. But, I suspect at least one reacted poorly, which wouldn’t be the first time that an objective editorial decision has led to negative outcomes for me personally as a poet.
Which leads me to anti-nepotism, a much nastier beast in my opinion. This is the “I scratch your back; you scratch mine” school of poetry publication–the one which leads people to become editors of journals simply so they can trade favors and get poems published which do not deserve it. I know that I have been blacklisted by at least two editors simply because I have–on merit–rejected their poems (and typically with a personally written response explaining why the fit was not there on this occasion.)
I am simply not prepared to compromise the quality of the Barefoot Muse in order to curry favor with anyone. I have to believe that the standard of the poems is paramount, and also, that if I write a good poem myself, it will eventually earn publication on its own merits. The upside is, that if I accept a poem of yours for the Barefoot Muse, you can be sure I did so on merit regardless of whether I know you or not.
Here’s to fools and idealists.
[...] November 25, 2007 at 4:19 am (response to criticism) Barefoot Muse editor Anna Evans blogs about the difficults attendant on rejecting submissions from poets one knows. More for the response to criticism tag. [...]
Pingback by Po-rruption? « Very Like A Whale — November 24, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Fascinating read on a difficult issue, even for a non-editor-wannabe-poet. Thanks.
Comment by Nic Sebastian — November 24, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
“Which leads me to anti-nepotism, a much nastier beast in my opinion. This is the “I scratch your back; you scratch mine” school of poetry publication–the one which leads people to become editors of journals simply so they can trade favors and get poems published which do not deserve it. I know that I have been blacklisted by at least two editors simply because I have–on merit–rejected their poems …”
What a bunch of amateurs (in the most negative sense of that word) they are. They’re not worth knowing nor worrying about. They probably edit journals that do not pay in terms of money nor prestige. So, forget about them.
Comment by DavidM — November 25, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Yay! Good entry – and of course you know I support your decision to reject those you did. I’m sorry you’ve felt any negative ripples from that. Sigh.
Comment by Rachel — November 26, 2007 @ 9:15 am
My one experience with poetry editing was in a blind-reading scenario, and I was so much more comfortable with that. I know I’m not objective. I think some people are much, much better at putting aside their own feelings about a poet in order to read the poetry than I am.
If you ever did want to do blind reading, you should recruit someone simply to do the work of stripping the identifiers out. Put those gawkers to work! (And now I scramble away lest I get recruited.
)
Julie
Comment by Julie Carter — November 26, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Thanks for sharing your views on this. I try hard to get our guest editors at the online lit mag I curate to adopt a similar attitude. Basically, if you’re serious about being a writer, you have to learn how to suck it up. And editors should be willing to reject works by Nobel laureates if they suck and accept works by unpublished nobodies if they rock. That is simply The Way It Should Be.
Comment by Dave Bonta — November 27, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Blacklisted, really? I can’t even imagine a situation in which, as an editor, I would blacklist someone just because she said no to one of my submissions, especially when it was done with a personal note. To my mind, it’s better to be rejected by an editor you know than accepted for the wrong reasons. Still, it’s a sticky wicket. More than once I’ve wondered if I’ve killed my chances somewhere by rejecting the poetry of a poetry editor!
I will admit that I might read with a jaundiced eye the work of a submitter who has dissed me in the past, though. Screamed at me, complained about me, publicly defamed my work. “Prior negative relationships” do happen. In such rare cases, if the work seems decent and germane, I call in one of my co-eds for a second opinion.
Now that I’ve been at this for a while, I can faithfully report that a gracious note from a rejectee makes me happy and reflects well on the poet too.
Comment by KateBB — November 28, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Interesting post, though I think it’s noteworthy that Foetry focussed on the contests without asking the essential questions about the contests as such: yes, there is favouritism; there are inside candidates quite often, etc., but… does asking people to shell out money to be considered for publication, and thereby subsidising a press, change things? Well, of course it does.
From a press’s point of view, the talented unknown–who may have submitted the best manuscript–is not necessarily a good investment, since no one knows who he or she is. Likewise, though, the “inside” person is probably going to be quite good by the standards of the judges. Of course, if you know that Jane Insider or Bob Club-Tie III is in the contest and probably going to win, you’ll probably spend the $25 entry fee on a nice steak dinner or something.
And I think that’s the key. If I e-mail off a submission to The Barefoot Muse, I do so in relative ignorance of what you’ve already accepted or rejected. It also doesn’t cost me anything, and a paper submission pretty much runs the most of the stamps.
As for the manuscript contests, I don’t think they make much sense from a publisher’s point of view, save financially (and in the U.S., where there isn’t Arts Council money of the sort that subsidises poetry publication in Britain and Ireland). The contests claim to offer the writer a potential shortcut, but they don’t really. Better to take the entry fees out of the equation, find some rich dude looking for a tax write-off, and take it from there.
Quincy
Comment by Quincy Lehr — December 1, 2007 @ 8:18 am