Which publications reject Eratosphere drafts?
 

This is a direct bounce from Golias's important thread "Avoiding Spiders." I apologize for the new thread, but think the question merits that prominence. Also, please look at Maryann Corbett's GT thread "Requests to delete poem threads." (My emphases.)

Quote from Golias:
... In the recent past I've had four poems declined, with apologies, because of their prior appearance online. G/W
Quotes from Maryann Corbett:
...it's also important that you not put the real title of the poem in the title field. If you do, the bots will find that.....
If anyone else's post refers to the poem's real title without protecting it with tags, that too will mess things up....
....And as an example of how long things stay in the cache, consider this. My poem "Rose Catalogue in January" was pruned at whatever time I got the January pruning to work correctly, at least a couple of weeks ago. It still shows up on a Google search.

Please pardon the emphasis below. It may be justified.

There are sure to be Eratosphere members who want to learn which other journals search the net and reject on the basis of Eratosphere trials. I know I am one of them. Would others share their experiences, or at least name the problem publications?

Allen

I am going to be a big noodge.
 

I am going to be a big noodge. As to rejection because of Eratosphere or other forum posting, there is no way to know unless they decide to tell you. In any given case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And then this from Janice:
Heck, I'd even be willing to pay if things were secure!

Internet publication such as we have here is publication. My wife the lawyer says so.

If one wants to protest or change this pattern of rejection, we need to know who to complain to. Which publications?

If one wants to avoid wasting time and energy, one needs to know who not to submit to. Which publications?

Golias was brave enough to name Poetry. As with a disease, silence does no one any good.

Allen

More noodging
 

Listen to Michael (my bold-facing):Allen

My question needs to be answered: Which? Who?
 

Janice, I appreciate your concern. I truly do. But there needs to be a place for explicit answers to the question I pose.

Best, Allen

It's especially puzzling to me to find that Golias has had poems apparently googled and rejected since he is one of the few here who posts under an assumed name. The use of an alias should make it much harder for a publication who was interested enough or had enough spare time on their hands to do seach and discard research each and every submitted poem.

As far as I know "Poetry" is one of the few which does not accept previously workshopped poems - and they state so explicitly on their submission page. I would think that if one wanted to submit a poem to them that they would be aware of their distaste for workshopping and either not workshop the poem ahead of time or just not submit it.

But that's just me.

And I'm cranky today.

Well, for one - 14by14 explicitly states that it does NOT exclude Erato workshopped poems.

I wonder how many other "mags" make such an explicit declaration?

One could always stick just to those...

PQ

I am not fighting with Golias, Janice, Mayann, nobody
 

Thank you, Philip. You just contributed to the solution. 14 by 14 is cool. Who is not? What's the evidence? I understand shyness about rejection. But silence hurts us all. Thanks, Michael, your wording is more temperate than mine today (doubtless because of superior quelque chose).

But, frankly, I'm to old to wait around for months to be rejected because I worked on a Trotsky poem, or an airplane poem, or a translation on Eratosphere.

Janice and Maryann, you know I love you, but there needs to be place to line up the guilty publications. So far:

Bad: Poetry
Good: 14 by 14

Allen

Allen, there's an easier and more direct way to line up mags as "good." You can look at "Accomplished Members."

If a poet says "X poem, which I workshopped on Met (or wherever), was accepted by The Somethingorother Quarterly," I'd say you can reasonably assume that publication is safe (except for Poetry, which states publicly that it doesn't want anything workshopped).

Maryann, excellent response for positive locations. It's one I will return to. But as with hazards to life and limb, one needs to know the danger spots.

Edited in: Is there a functioning consensus among publishers about acknowledging a ban on Internetted work. The scuttlebutt I heard recently at a Conference at The New School here, suggested there is not. The tenor seemed to be "Who worries? It's only the impossible places that do that." Well with me, the impossible I do immediately, the boring takes a little longer. Seriously, I think I have good reason to be so wired up.

Bless,
Allen

Allen, in response to Michael Cantor's question which you quoted, I did not receive a standard rejection slip. I received a personal letter of explanation signed by Don Share, the associate editor of Poetry. The lead poem I sent them was "Caravel" the sonnet which had been most favorably critiqued by Richard Wilbur in last year's sonnet bakeoff, and which was subsequently published in First Things.. The other poems had been workshopped also, either here or, in one case, at the Gazebo -- but all were declined and included in Don Share's explanation. It was a nice enough letter and I do understand the rationale of their policy. This will be my last online mention of Poetry or any other particular journal in the context of this discussion.

As long as we continue to PUBLISH workshopped poems here we must, I think, expect the better journals (some, not all) to consider it prior publication. Taking the workshop boards, and perhaps the bake-offs private, as has been suggested, sounds like the best and maybe the only solution that will allow poets who like to workshop but also aspire to publication in major print journals to continue workshopping any of their more promising work here. I understand some of the arguments against such a move, and they have weight. If it doesn't happen we must each make our own decisions and take or decline to take our own risks in the matter.


G/W