Conte Online

Against the Blitzkrieg: Some Thoughts on Submission Etiquette

I recently had the good fortune to find myself with a free afternoon in a college library to peruse an eclectic array of literary journals. Most were the prestigious sort, with university endowments and several prominent names gracing their glossy back covers. And while I have nothing against this sort of publication—heck, I subscribe to a few and occasionally send them my work—I always find it curious how passive-aggressive some of their submission policies can be.

At the risk of making an unfair generalization, a beginning writer could hold one of these esteemed volumes in her hand and get the impression that she must read the past seventeen issues, cover to cover, before venturing the thought of sending such hallowed editors her meager envelope of poems. The language employed is vaguely menacing, too, like a corporate memo reminding employees not to swipe from the supply closet: “All writers, but especially those just starting out, should closely review the type of work we publish as well as our editorial guidelines, since we will burn any submissions that annoy us in an old oil drum behind the dumpster. We are quite important and can’t be bothered with any funny business. We also recommend you subscribe to our publication since we hope to hire an intern this summer. Our rates are as follows…”

I find all of this a bit self-serving and extreme. And yet, as an editor myself, I understand the need for an air of paternal sternness since many writers still insist on what is frequently called “blanket submissions,” and what I’ve come to call “blitzkrieg submissions” ever since Robert and I started Conte four long years ago. These are folks who want to get published by any means necessary, and send their stories, poems, or articles to as many editors as possible, regardless of whether 1) the journal is a good fit for the work; 2) the journal is even open to submissions at the time; or 3) the work is formatted properly. 
 
Other markers of these blitzkrieg submissions are the lack of a cover letter, a cover letter so painfully generic that it provides little context for the submission, or—and this is the one I hate the most—a cover letter that is an irreverent and sloppy autobiography, replete with dubious-sounding honors and publications: “I’m a 47 year-old Texan whose marriage is on the outs and I’m currently employed as a rat trainer in Houston. I love saltine crackers and try to get a foot massage at least once a month. Last summer I won the 3rd Annual Horse of a Different Color Essay Contest, and nine thousand of my poems have appeared in magazines such as Kangaroo Crucifixion, Vomit Casserole, Watch Out for Those Nuns, and Stabbed!
 
The internet has made it even easier to send these blitzkrieg submissions, since all a writer has to do is paste the email addresses of various editors into the ‘send’ or ‘BCC’ bar of an email and away the little pretties go. I suspect there is some comfort in the anonymity of mass-mailing—after all, it’s only email—and a ticklish rush at the thought of dozens of editors considering your masterpieces.
 
There is, of course, a middle road between the two extremes I’ve outlined above, and I can boil it down to two basic guidelines: 1) Never send your work to a journal you haven’t read. Ever. If it’s a print journal, purchase a copy from an independent bookstore, borrow an issue from a fellow writer, or spend a few hours (as I often do) getting acquainted in a local library. If the publication is freely available online, then you have no excuse for not reading it through. Personally, I’ve always found that thirty minutes with a journal gives me a pretty clear sense of their aesthetic, their editorial philosophy, and their range (or lack thereof). 2) If you decide to submit your work to a publication, follow their damn rules. Some journals don’t accept simultaneous submissions; some journals only read during the academic year; some journals don’t want a cover letter; some journals are picky about formatting, and even want poems double-spaced. Disregarding submission guidelines is the quickest path to rejection, and believe me—not all slush piles are created equal. Even if your work doesn’t make it through the first round of editorial readings, as it so often won’t, you can rest easy knowing that you followed the rules and can submit to a journal again in half a year without making some poor editor exclaim, “good grief, not this hack again!”
Filed under: Musings — Tavel, February 16, 2009 at 5:52 pm

Update on Conte 5.1

We’re now actively reading for Conte 5.1, and have set a July 1st deadline for our summer 2009 issue.  For friends old and new, we look forward to reading your work.

Filed under: News — admin, February 6, 2009 at 11:14 am

Naming Our Children: A Brief Editorial on Titles

Several years ago I heard the poet Richard Jackson (who would, coincidently, later be a teacher of mine) remark during a reading that he labored, at times tremendously so, with finding appropriate titles for his poems. I won’t run the risk of misquoting him, but the gist of his remarks—which he shared with equal parts wit and rue—was that selecting titles proved chronically problematic, and that he exhausted countless possibilities before he sometimes surrendered, counted X number of lines down from the beginning, and just chose a three or four word phrase to finish the damn thing. 

I assume these remarks struck the rest of the audience as the idle, friendly, and somewhat awkward chit-chat that poets ramble while reading their work publicly, but for me at least, it was one of those billiard-ball moments that happens in the life of a writer when a seemingly innocuous statement sends us hurtling in an altogether new direction. Ever since, I’ve tried to hold the titles of my own poems to a higher standard, and while I have no real regimen for this process, my sole commandment has been “thou shall not let the title be an afterthought.” (Though I confess I’ve sinned against this commandment several times, and a few of these sins are in print.)  Recently, I couldn’t help but recall this moment when I was reading a slender anthology by young American poets. Here’s a random sampling of titles from the collection: “Clothes,” “The Photo,” “A Prayer,” “Epiphany,” “Dad,” “Untitled.”
 
Speaking merely as a reader and fellow poet, these titles…well, they just plain stink. Whether we write poetry or prose, research papers or rock lyrics, the title of any composition that claims literary merit has an obligation to be expressive and representative. Let me quickly qualify this statement: I am not advocating any proscriptive system for choosing a title. That said, however, I cannot help but compare the aforementioned throwaways to the following titles that I found in a mere ten minutes from a haphazard treasure hunt through my home library: “Antwerp Rainy All Churches Still Haunted” (Joshua Clover); “Costumes in the Forbidden City” (Roger Weingarten); “Grass Fires” (Robert Lowell); “My Father Rode Great, Silver Birds” (Vicki Hearne); “Bayonne Turnpike to Tuscarora” (Allen Ginsberg); “The Three Susans” (Jane Kenyon), “The Atom and Hawkman Discuss Metaphysics” (A. Van Jordan), “The Sudden Light and the Trees” (Stephen Dunn).
 
I’m not arguing these titles are good; I’m arguing they’re effective. After a great deal of reflection, I’d like to offer ten guidelines to the Conte community as it may help us all be more selective when we name our children:
  • Like a good doctor, a title should do no harm.
  • A title is not a thesis statement.
  • A title should purchase at least thirty seconds of a reader’s curiosity.
  • Unless you are an abstract expressionist from the 1940s, “untitled” should be banned from your vocabulary.
  • A title should be specific enough to fit only one composition in your personal oeuvre. 
  • A title shouldn’t give away all the answers to the quiz.
  • If a quick-and-dirty internet search generates dozens of poems/stories/essays with your title, bury it behind the shed.
  • A title shouldn’t spoil the ending. A title shouldn’t spoil.
  • Whether it’s charm, wit, eloquence, poise, or candor, a title should have at least one redeeming human quality.
  • A title best not write a check your ass can’t cash.
Filed under: Musings — Tavel, February 2, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Design by Keep Sleeping; best viewed with Firefox.