[Shaun J. Russell]

A few years ago when I was doing a lot of submitting (i.e.: going through Poet's Market 2008 and circling venues to send to), I crossed out all the entries that said, "no rhyming poetry" and similar sentiments (some of them, by the way, were quite militant against rhyming poems), and considered everything else fair game. As a result, I got a lot of formal, rhyming poems in venues that were mostly known for free verse, but never explicitly stated that they wouldn't look at the formal stuff.

I sometimes worry that a lot of formalists don't make the effort (and it is an effort) to send work to non-formal venues. It can be pretty rewarding.

In a way, I'm glad that there are poetry venues that explicitly state that they don't want the formal stuff. It makes it a little easier to pick and choose venues.

By the way, Ed, I personally think there's a lot to be said for a perfect, concise poem, rather like many I've seen from you. There are always exceptions, but many long poems tend to ramble. I can get through "Eve of St. Agnes" or "Lines Written In A Country Churchyard" and most lengthy Auden, but for every one of those, there's a dozen that I can't muster up the stamina to plow through.

[Esther Murer]

I have seen zines that said no rhyming poetry but in fact included some.
How do they define "rhyming"? Do they mean "greeting card verse"? Or the more familiar forms? How would Emily Dickinson or Wilfred Owen fare? Would they know a slant rhyme if they saw one? Or internal rhyme?

Esther

[John Whitworth]

I think Philip Larkin thought of long poems as any that required you to turn the page. I think of long poems as all those too long to put into competitions - in practice anything longer than 40 lines.

My favourite long poem is The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (the Fitzgerald I mean) and my second favourite is Tam o' Shanter by Robert Burns. Or vice versa.

[Janice D. Soderling]

I think editors stick to what they know they can judge in an adequate way. If they aren't savvy about received forms, they are wise to stay away from it and do the craft a favor by not sullying formal verse's reputation.

If I were an editor (god forbid) with my own little playing field, I would say no areas where I knew I wasn't competent to judge.

And if they just plain don't like sonnets and sestinas, why should they publish them? There is always the awesome Able Muse and her sister publications. More than most of us will wear out in a lifetime.

(My usual two cents on this issue.)

[David Rosenthal]

I generally feel that editors should feel free to publish what they want to publish. It is easy enough to alert a would-be submitter not to submit rhyming poems, and I actually appreciate that clarity. When they say things like "no obvious rhymes," or "no greeting card verse," "or no tired rhymes," they simply aren't being clear enough about what they mean to exclude.

Once, several years ago, I saw an entry in the Poet's Market, that said, "no 'moon, June, spoon' rhyme." I thought, "Really? They are happy to have any other rhyme but that?" Of course not, so why not just be clear. "Besides," I thought, "what if I am writing a poem on a June night when the moon is up and the Big Dipper is hanging like a giant spoon?" So I wrote a poem called "Moon, June, Spoon" with an -oon monorhyme throughout.

I considered sending it to the journal in question, but that would just have been a waste of postage, and they do have a right to exclude and include whatever they want. Besides, they aren't saying one shouldn't write such rhymes, just that they won't be publishing them. My poem ended up in The Lyric, a fitting venue.

David R.

[Michael Cantor]

I've always tried to go beyond the brief description (""excluding rhyming" can very well mean "excluding Hallmark doggerel") and see what is actually in the journal (If it's an on-line journal, no problem in checking it out) or if I know anybody in there - or even google a few of the names. What you quote, Ed, sounds sloppily written. If so, why would you want to be in there?

[Ed Shacklee]

Originally Posted by Michael Cantor

What you quote, Ed, sounds sloppily written. If so, why would you want to be in there?

That's the Duotrope formula for listing 'Poetry Forms' under 'Genres, Styles & Themes' -- 'Open to' and 'Excluding' are the only categories offered for a journal to note what they will or won't accept. Given the black and white nature of those categories, I wondered how many journals explicitly exclude poems that rhyme from consideration; however inexact, I thought that might be some indication of how the wind is blowing.

It's also interesting to hear where people apply or don't apply, and why, but that's a different question.

Ed

[John Whitworth]

Do you know, David, I'd love to see that poem

[David Landrum]

I remember the old listing for Artful Dodge used to say they did not want "the last vestiges of rhymed poetry in the civilized world." That was quite a few years ago, will have to check and see if they changed it.

dwl

[Rory Waterman]

Originally Posted by David Landrum

Artful Dodge used to say they did not want "the last vestiges of rhymed poetry in the civilized world."

What on earth does that mean? Editors can choose whatever criteria they like, and would-be readers and submitters have every right to think the criteria balls and to vote by subscribing and sending work elsewhere. From that point of view, then, woeful criteria are surely quite useful.