Journal publication is dictated by a huge element of chance: who happened to read your submission, and what frame of mind were they in at the time. I don\u2019t know how many people are involved in the decision to accept or reject a submission, but probably not too many. I\u2019ve always suspected that name recognition plays a role\u2014and why not? If you\u2019re tasked with churning through a teetering slush pile, you\u2019re bound to look for shortcuts (though as for that, I suspect that many of the poems that appear in journals were not submitted but solicited). That\u2019s why I\u2019ve always preferred venues with blind reading processes.<\/p>\n
I was recently intrigued to find a new (to me, at least) journal that opens up the selection process. It\u2019s called SixFold,<\/a> and it essentially democratizes the whole thing. Participants pay a minimal fee to enter, and then read a selection of poems by other participants. The readers rank the submissions, and top ranked submissions advance to the next stage. This happens two more times, with the dwindling number of submissions being read by a growing number of reviewers. The top three receive awards, and the other finalists receive publication. I suppose this is the poetic equivalent of March Madness (OK, I don\u2019t actually know what March Madness is—but I\u2019m probably not far wrong).<\/p>\n I can see advantages and disadvantages to this approach. For example, many journals reflect the tastes of a single chief editor (or a small editorial staff), and attract an audience based on that editor\u2019s style and reputation. There are many journals that I simply don\u2019t submit to, because I know they would have no interest in my type of poetry. With SixFold, there really can be no overriding vision or stylistic emphasis, because the poems are selected by the collective pool of readers—and that pool is liable to change with each issue (though it may ultimately prove to be a self-selecting set). In theory, this will generate a journal that does not target a specific readership and demographic, but will appeal to the widest range of readers. It also means that a submission is less subject to the whims of a single reader—and if it\u2019s any good, it has better odds of being recognized.<\/p>\n On the other hand, I\u2019m well aware that the collective will of the people gave us our current president. So the system is not entirely foolproof.<\/p>\n But SixFold has another wonderful benefit: all of those readers have a chance to comment on the work. And my recent experience shows that many people take that very seriously. Usually, editorial comments on a submission amount to \u201cwe enjoyed your work, please try us again.\u201d With SixFold, I had access to dozens of comments—often quite extensive—about my work. I found it extremely interesting to see what sort of reactions my work would engender, and a bit amusing to see the vastly different readings a poem might permit. <\/p>\n For example, a poem that was \u201ctight, meaningful and very strong\u201d to one reader was \u201ca sentimental exercise fit for a Hallmark card\u201d to another. About another poem, one reader wrote, \u201cI wept when I read your poem,\u201d while another remarked, \u201cI know this is about something deeply personal and important to you, but it doesn’t engage the outside reader.\u201d Another poem prompted some readers to comment, \u201cThe last line\u2026 stops you in your tracks\u201d and \u201cI love the ending of this one\u201d; and yet another reader commented, \u201cYou might not need the last two lines.\u201d<\/p>\n I think my favorite comment was this: \u201c[the poem] shows you can work with rhyme without embarrassing yourself.\u201d Well, I do set a very high bar.<\/p>\n The range of responses serves to illustrate my initial point: if any one of those readers had been exclusively responsible for accepting or rejecting the submission, there\u2019s really no telling how the decision might\u2019ve gone. With the democratized process, the general consensus tends to cancel out any fringe opinions.<\/p>\n SixFold was founded by Garrett Doherty, who, as editor of Crazyhorse, declined several of my poems in the past. The fact the he is now, essentially, publishing my work is itself a vindication of the process, and underscores the possibilities of a diffuse selection process. It\u2019s not perfect —I like the idea of making a personal connection with an editor—but I suspect I submit to SixFold again in the future.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Journal publication is dictated by a huge element of chance: who happened to read your submission, and what frame of mind were they in at the time. I don\u2019t know how many people are involved in the decision to accept … Continue reading