View Single Post
  #9  
Unread 01-31-2019, 09:46 AM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

I've never understood why some poetry editors have one-and-done attitudes toward previously published material, anyway.

Lots of radio stations play the same songs as each other, but a good song isn't regarded as damaged goods after its first appearance.

So why is poetry different? Why do poetry magazine editors have this weird virginity fetish about good poems having been previously seen by the (tiny handful of) readers of one poetry magazine or blog before being seen by the (tiny handful of) readers of another?

In practice, poets whose consciences aren't troubled by unauthorized simultaneous submissions (especially in unlikely-to-be-detected print-only venues, since no one can check all of those) enjoy significant advantages over poets who "follow the rules even when no one's looking." The poet who submits the same poem to twenty venues will have a much better chance of being published than the one who submits to one venue and then virtuously waits over a year (sometimes) to hear back before shopping that poem somewhere else.

Personally, I think that "no-previous-appearance" and "no-simul-sub" rules exacerbate the well-documented dearth of female contributors to poetry magazines. Girls are societally encouraged to be goody-goodies who comply with every rule (such as not interrupting, putting their hands down while others are speaking, etc.), while boys are societally encouraged to demonstrate "leadership qualities" by transgressing rules (such as talking over others until the others demonstrate weakness by dropping out, and generally seeing how much they can get away with in various situations).

Regardless of gender stereotypes, I think that rules that are largely unenforceable penalize the conscientious and reward the ethically...um... flexible. Which can't be a good thing.
Reply With Quote