fibitz

08:53 pm: The New Engl Ish
We've heard a lot about dumbing-down, and the idea that the decline of reading, especially of works published in print form, from back when they knew how to do it, is contributing to the appalling writing skills of today's youth. Well, shit; it's contributing to the appalling skills of today's everybody. I'm not talking about the occasional typo or brainfart; I'm talking about consistently bad writing and editing, almost across the board. Even major print publishers don't seem to give proofreading the care and attention they used to: I just finished an excellent new fantasy novel—but the author or his editor or proofreader doesn't know that "callous" is the adjective; the noun is "callus." Or the correct spelling of "all right."

And minor print publishers are even worse, it would seem. I recently came across a novel that had been published with a cover too dark to distinguish its elements, using the same font and weight throughout, including page numbers, chapter headings, etc., and literally at least one typo per paragraph all the way through the book. Self-published? I hear you asking. Well, no. The publishers are a "professional," i.e., doing-this-for-money outfit, and they are paying the author, in order to produce, at some expense, a travesty of a finished book.

What makes people enter a profession in which they have no demonstrable skill or education? Liking to read, laudable as that may be, is no guarantee that one has any skill as a publisher. Why do companies persist in bringing out books that are poorly written in the first place, and then sloppily edited? Aren't they ashamed of their product at some point? Don't their readers notice?

This is said to be worse online, which ain't necessarily so. While bottom-feeders abound, produced with a predictable level of incompetence, the problem doesn't end there. Massive spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors are certainly not what one expects to find in any journal produced by a college English or Creative Writing department—but one does, all over the place. What possesses the faculty at these places (assuming that they have the necessary skills) to let the graduate and/or undergraduate students who are editing and producing these things send them out into the world without having someone knowledgeable give them the once-over? Do they imagine that a demonstration of their students' deficiencies is some sort of advertisement for their programs?

The authors themselves have limited responsibility. Liking to write is where an author should begin, although a certain level of grammatical competence is necessary. If one is fortunate, one may find a compassionate editor or agent willing to fix grammatical and spelling errors if the rest of the manuscript is solid, but the more likely outcome is that a hasty read of a page or two will irretrievably associate the grammatical errors with a general lack of writing talent, and into the rejection pile it goes. But authors can't proofread their own manuscripts effectively, and once accepted for publication, the grammatical shortcomings of a manuscript become the responsibility of the publisher, who in turn should be judged by the quality of the product—and I do judge! I get completely turned off as a purchaser when, starting to leaf through a book I think I might enjoy, I find errors that a good editor should have decapitated in embryo.

Strangely enough, I have the same gut reaction when submitting to journals or presses. When I look at a journal, print or online, and see that they have published a poem, apparently as sent to them, with apostrophes in the possessive "its," "lay" where "lie" should have been used, and other abominations strewn throughout a piece of less than 200 words, I don't really want to see my work appear alongside this mess.

I recently did not enter a chapbook contest that, initially, seemed attractive: reasonable entry fee, generous prize money, tout comme il faut. Why not? I looked at the press's website, and a more grotesquely-designed, unreadable (black text on near-black photo background) home page has rarely been seen outside of geocities. Would I want an outfit like this to design a chapbook of mine? That would be a NO.

What press DO I want to design a chapbook of mine? That's easy. Payseur & Schmidt, she says, wistfully gazing into the distance.

I bet you're thinking, Editing is probably a lot harder than it looks. She should cut those inept bastards some slack. Well, guess what. I have edited a few chapbooks for other people, as well as a local poetry website (where helpful natives are quick to point out errors, bless their little hearts), and, more recently, co-edited and did the design and layout for the Wisconsin Poets' Calendar—a relatively large-scale commercial proposition. I do know how hard it is to spot these mistakes—but you need to set yourself up to be able to spot them. If you don't know grammar, fercryin'outloud hire someone who does! And don't underestimate volunteer labor. Lookit Wikipedia: the internet is full of folks who would like nothing better than to inform others, for free. Q.E.D.

If I can take the trouble to learn where commas and semi-colons and hyphens go, and the difference between "lie" and "lay," to say nothing of "its" and "it's," so can you-all, fuckers.

09:48 am: Mouth where the money isn't
The CLMP Code of Ethics was touted as a major step forward in spiffing up the standards of poetry contests, but, as I've mentioned elsewhere (see article in 2008 Poet's Market), it has no teeth. "Transparency" means "We can do what we want as long as we state what we're doing"—in other words, continuing to hire judges whose relationships with entrants are on otheir own recognizance, not naming the judge at all, and other—what I consider—irregularities.

The most risible instances, however, are the contests who prominently display the CLMP code on their site—and then fail to indicate the judging process at all; i.e., non-transparency. It's sort of Bush admin, don't you think? To make a statement, or give a policy a title, and then engage in actions that directly contradict it.

I've found that many of these folks will divulge the judge's name, and a description of the preliminary selection process, if you ask 'em—but surely "transparency" means stating your process right up front? The CLMP code has gone from toothless to meaningless, if you ask me.

I encourage poets to bombard contests with e-mails if the judge is not named and a notification date is not given. I strongly encourage poets to boycott contests where the entry fee exceeds more than 2% of the prize value. While high entry fee:prize ratios used to be the distinguishing characteristic of local poetry societies and other bottom-feeders, there is a distressing trend toward high entry fees and small prizes—or no prize other than publication—in contests sponsored by formerly-reputable entities.

10:33 pm: More poetry peevishness
There seems to be an ominous increase in "vanity" contests masquerading as the real thing. It has always been an unstated (actually, I'm sure I've read this somewhere) rule that self-respecting poets do not pay for the opportunity to give a reading, or that of merely having their work published, and that legitimate publishers do not charge for considering manuscripts for publication unless a contest—with prize money—is involved. Yet, there has been a distressing tendency among previously-respectable presses to charge "reading fees" for book-length manuscript submissions, and I've seen recently several scam "contests" promoted by entities that should know better.

One was a competition, with an entry fee of $15, as I recall, where the winning poem would be set to music and performed by a symphony orchestra—no prize money; just the glory of having your poem used without compensation. Adult tickets for upcoming performances of this orchestra are $10 each. I have no idea whether the musical performers are paid.

Another was a state literary organization that chose to target poets—by no means the primary beneficiaries of its activities--by charging a $10 entry fee for a poem "contest" judged by a committee of its less-than-stellar members. The prize: to have one's poem and photo printed on a bookmark for free distribution, and a reading slot at an upcoming book festival. No prize money at all; just the most trivial form of publication possible (okay, okay; drink coasters would have been tackier) and the "privilege" of reading—with no guarantee of an audience.

Yet another was this "Best New Poets of 2007" thing: "There is a reading fee of $8 for all Open Competition entries; the fee includes a reading of your work and a copy of the 2007 anthology ..." Again, no mention of prize money that I can find. In my book, that's the equivalent of requiring one to be a subscriber to be considered for publication; a practice in which only a very few bottom-feeder journals engage.

I was sad to see a number of local poets whom I hold in high esteem fall for more than one of these. I think that as poets become increasingly desperate for publication, especially those whose professional careers depend on it, they don't consider the probity of the soliciting entity, or the actual risk/payoff ratio. While some entry fees have climbed to the point where the fees above may seem negligible, I've made a point in recent years of not entering any contests whose entry fees were more than 2% of the prize money. I believe we owe it to ourselves as poets, as well as to our communities, not to support heinous or ill-considered practices with our checkbooks. Boycott these things, and tell 'em why. "Fund-raising" is not an excuse; these folks should solicit donations from corporations, seek grants, or hold bake sales. Or at least offer respectable prize money, which would likely not only draw enough additional entries to make up for it, but ensure a far better quality of competition.

And if you are looking for any more excuses to cull your list of possible contests to enter, here are a few more criteria, after applying the entry-fee-max-2%-of prize standard:
a) Named judge (see 2/18/06 posting)
b) Response date (see 6/23/06 posting)
c) Ease of submission: by this I mean that if I have to reformat my poetry in double-spaced Times New Roman and send in five print copies with the word and line count on each page plus two discs in MS Word, it's not gonna happen, unless the prize money goes into 5 figures.

And no, prize money isn't everything. I happily submit to places that don't pay anything, as long as they don't charge me to do so. But what is everything, or almost everything, is not having your hard work devalued by places that make you pay in order to let them use your poetry

07:57 pm: Editorial Response Schedules
Time to bitch again about publications and/or contests that don't respond to inquiries. I'm not talking about the what-do-you-think-of-the-85-pages-of-heartfelt-confessional-poems-I-sent-to-you-two-weeks-ago inquiries. I'm talking about contests where I paid an entry fee (and they cashed the check, so I know damn well they got it) and enclosed a SASE, and now it's 2 months past the date by which they said entrants would be notified by, and they don't respond to inquiries sent to the e-mail address given on the website. To name names, which I feel is a salutary pursuit, this has happened with the Poets Out Loud prize and with the Chicago Literary Awards, offered (presumably) by Another Chicago Magazine. In the case of the latter, this is the second year in a row this has happened. I will not be entering that contest again. And let that be a lesson to you.

Editorial prerogative and idiosyncrasy is not unncommon among lit mags, but accepting money for contest submissions puts a whole different complexion on this sort of behavior. I have been fortunate enough to win or place in literary competitions on a regular basis; therefore, I'm pretty sure I'm following the correct protocol for sending in my entries. I include my e-mail address, and I don't have a problem with the occasional competition that e-mails to say that there will be a delay in announcing the results, for whatever reason. But I think it's unconscionable to accept money and then not bother to a) follow one's own schedule, or b) reply to legitimate inquiries. No, wait; it's outrageous, not unconscionable. Unconscionable is best applied to the policies of the Bush régime.

And now, one more rant: can those mags that accept e-submissions please acknowledge their receipt? It's obnoxious to wait for 8 months or a year, and then discover the sub was never received. And regarding lack of timely response: if the Paris Review can deal with e-inquiries, you lesser life-forms should be able to do so without having a hissy-cow. Et na.

10:55 am: Judge not lest j'accuse
I've got some pet peeves on contests. I'd like to see a contest Code of Ethics, that, unlike the wimpy thing recently implemented in the wake of Foetry, deals in specifics.

One complaint I have is about not giving response deadlines, or failing to honor them, AND THEN NOT RESPONDING TO INQUIRIES, which happened to me with the 2005 Pittsburgh Quarterly Sara Henderson Hay Prize: they gave the notification date as Sept. 1 (I ALWAYS include an SASE and my e-mail address). I finally made an e-mail inquiry (polite, no attachments, explanatory subject line, etc.) on Oct. 24. I made a second, also polite, inquiry on January 6th to other e-mail addresses given on the site, mentioning the lack of response to the first inquiry, and have yet to receive any reply to those, either.

My biggest gripe, however, is with contests that don't name judges. For competitions that want to avoid any relationship between the judge and selected winners, the only sensible way of doing this is to put the responsibility in the entrant's lap, where it belongs, by prohibiting them from entering if they have a prior relationship with the judge (and obviously, entrants need to know who the judge is to make that determination). Not that I don't believe we haven't seen some egregious examples of collusion and favoritism for which the judge in question was clearly to blame, but the system as it stands puts an unfair burden on honest and well-meaning judges.

Marilyn Taylor, the Poet Laureate of Milwaukee, a friend of mine and a person of sterling reputation and uncompromising integrity, has been harassed non-stop for the past year by a woman who has posted diatribes on foetry.com and other sites, as well as sending letters to organizations whose boards Marilyn is on, calling for her removal. Marilyn was kind enough to judge a small local poetry contest for the Milwaukee Public Library, with negligible prizes. Another adjunct professor at UW-M, who Marilyn did not know (Marilyn's name was announced as the judge, however), entered and won second place (the would-be watchdog of poetic purity received an honorable mention). The contest was judged blind; Marilyn was not familiar with the other professor's work, and the library staff is not especially knowledgeable about the poetry scene. I find it odd, in this situation, that the judge was blamed for what was clearly, in my opinion, a lack of ethical judgment on the part of the entrant.

A judge (to say nothing of competition staff) cannot be reliably expected to recognize the work of former/current students, family, friends, etc. and it is awkward, tedious, and disappointing to re-judge after winners have been selected (assuming the judge is given the opportunity to do so following disclosure of winners' identities), and even more annoying and embarrassing to withdraw and redistribute prizes after winners have been announced. And yet MORE vexatious to get an undeserved reputation for running a rigged competition!

Contests should be blind-judged—and the names of judges should invariably be announced up front (except where judging takes place by committee at a level where pretending that judges do not know the candidates would be disingenuous). Contest entrants should be required to acknowledge that they will incur legal penalties by ignoring or concealing a relationship with the judge. I guarantee that the first time someone has to give back a prize they won dishonestly—and pay the legal fees incurred by the contest organizer—this sort of backbiting will become a thing of the past (other backbiting will take its place, of course. Don't say I didn't warn you.)

The only logic behind not naming the judge, as far as I can see, is discreditable to the competition sponsors:

a) the judge is not sufficiently prestigious to draw the hoped-for number of entries
b) no one has gotten around to hiring a judge yet
c) a judge has been hired who it is feared might be amenable to bribery (or hey, how about blackmail!)

07:09 pm: Thing One
Well, isn't this sweet! Who says TANSTAAFL? I only wanted to reply to a post on another livejournal, so this may not get a lot of mileage. But you never know ... I certainly intend at some point to make disparaging comments about how obnoxious I find the mood/music indicators. I guess if you can't annoy people with unrequested music downloading into their speakers, you can certainly tell them what you would LIKE to annoy them with. There are plenty of sites for those who WANT to discuss their musical tastes—why not save that information for them?