> Marcus said:
> > Perhaps poetry editors can get away with not caring about their
> > vendors or potential vendors because there is always another one
> > eager to take any shit the editor happens to want to give.
 
On 11 Jan 2006 at 8:18, Alison Croggon wrote:
> Most poetry editors I know don't dole out shit. Most of them work long
> hours for little or no money, out of a sense of commitment to and
> faith in the work they are publishing.  It can be, as this comment
> demonstrates, pretty thankless.<

And their replies can be pretty disingenuous. Note the croggonite way 
that this response has left out entirely my account of what I mean by 
"shit": The next sentence after her quote continues:

> ... I've heard the
> same about the music business. Musicians are routinely humiliated
> and taken advantage of because there are so many musicians
> desperate for a record contract that they'll do anything to get one.
> Perhaps it's the same in the poetry biz: there are always poets who
> will do anything to get published, take any shit the editor gives out, so
> editors are pretty casual about the whole process and, in fact, come to
> think that they're not giving any shit. It's just that they're so busy, that
> their site is being spammed, that there are too many submissions,
> there's just too much work to do, and they feel stressed about it, so
> they feel justified in spreading the stress around. They don't answer
> their mail or their email or their phones; they say that the process
> takes months or years to review the poems submitted; they make jerky
> little requirements about paper size or where the name goes or
> doesn't go or typeface or paper weight or number of poems or number 
> of pages or stapled or not or cover page or not or letter or not or bio or 
> not or bio and letter but no cover page or cover page and bio but no
> letter or there can be no evidence that these poems have been sent
> elsewhere first, or at all, or only email submissions or no email
> submissions, and on it goes. 

Now, very clearly I'm pointing out just the kinds of shit that everyone 
complains about in editors. It's just not the case that editors don't give 
poets this kind of shit. I do note that editors come to believe that 
because they are so hard-pressed for time and are nearly always doing 
it for free that they don't THINK it's shit, and voila! here's an example of 
an editor saying that that kind of typical editor behavior is not shit -- 
even though she herself doesn't indulge in it because she has a no-
submissions policy. Strong union, I guess.

> Out of sheer necessity, I have a no
> submissions policy, and so avoid some of the headaches.  I personally
> find editing very satisfying - it's wonderful not dealing with my own
> work.<

This, however, strikes me as eminently sensible. Publishing only things 
you solicit from friends and people whose work you admire seems like a 
very reasonable way to go about it. 

> The most interesting journals have always been those which reflect a
> particular editor's taste, rather than a sort of bland committee-led
> soup. And the best way to counter argue is to start your own magazine.

The best counter-argument is pointing out the kinds of behavior that are 
typical of editors, and holding them to account for the differences 
between what they say and what they do. 

Marcus