[Quincy Lehr]

Catherine--

I'm not objecting, just wondering what the editors think will make this different from that stretch of Measure with all the Nemerov finalists in it, or webzines like Bringing Sonnets Back, or You-Know-Who's Contemporary Sonnet. Some of it's a bit obvious--a different editorial mix will mean different selections made. (And the combination of current and former webzine editors--Folly, Barefoot Muse, SCR/Chimaera is also interesting. David and Rhina are the only two who, to my knowledge, aren't editing or haven't edited a web zine in the past.) But I'm curious as to why the sonnet in particular.

Quincy

[This message has been edited by Quincy Lehr (edited October 18, 2007).]

[peterjb]

The sonnets selected will be those rated highest by the panelists who read them. Typically, each sonnet will be read by three people.

David R, what we say on the site is this:

We prefer sonnets that have never been published elsewhere, online or in print. (We do not consider something “published” if it has been posted only on a forum or workshop site where the work is not archived.)

So... we’d rather have new work, but previously published sonnets are not absolutely ruled out. That opening was left mainly in case we had trouble getting fourteen good enough sonnets within the timeframe. If that did happen, we might, as a fallback, want to approach the authors of sonnets we’ve seen elsewhere and liked exceedingly well, asking if we could republish them. But I don’t think it will come to that. I’m confident that all the sonneteers out there won’t let it.

I’m actually more concerned that we might end up with too many good ones. Suppose we had to change the name to “nineteen by nineteen” and ask the authors to convert their sonnets into villanelles.

[Maryann Corbett]

A suggestion: let's take Quincy's question to GT, rather than complicate an announcement thread with a larger discussion.

Congrats to the organizers on this venture.

Maryann

[Quincy Lehr]

Maryann--

Done.

Quincy

[peterjb]

An addendum: Robert Crawford (2006 Nemerov winner) has now joined the selection panel.

[peterjb]

Bumping this up to mention a modification to the selection procedure.

Someone suggested we could get closer to the ideal of completely “blind” selection if the person receiving the subs and seeing the authors’ names weren’t also on the selection panel. Since I don’t mind excluding myself from the selectors, I’ve done so and modified the info on the website accordingly. Nobody rating the subs will do so knowing who the authors are.

Of course, sometimes a panelist might recognise something previously seen here or on another board. I’m confident everyone will judge objectively in any case — but where a panelist knows or guesses the author and prefers to recuse him/herself, someone else will read instead.

[Thomas Newton]

I doubt that a Newtonian sonnet could make it through any panelist without being recognized so a blind selection process in not that important to me.

[Quincy Lehr]

Thomas--

Are you saying that Sir Isaac Newton wrote sonnets?

Quincy

[Catherine Chandler]

No, Quincy, I think he means those numerous sonnets about fig newtons.

[Quincy Lehr]

Catherine--

Though you know, he could be referring to sonnets about Newton, the grey tabby cat we had when I was a kid. Newton was a good cat, and we loved him.

Quincy