more back to:

Overcoming

Editorial Selection Procedures

cont’d from January 13, 2k15

Cheap Seats Ticket to Ride: Cheap Seats falls primarily into the Somewhere…category; the actual, chosen, submitted pieces being cut and fit into page templates as they are sent to us.

Selection: Depending upon schedules, one of our three “editors” (publication mendicants) will opt to initially select pieces based upon the incoming types and themes (if theme threads become evident at an early stage in the schedule.) Initial selection is based upon our likes, dislikes and our poetic/technical background.

1.)  Is the “poem” of such a physical dimension that it will fit our template? (an actual high-techie piece of chip-board cardboard with a rectangular opening cut into it.)

2.)  If the text provided falls outside of this template opening: is it at least close? Sometimes some care in the page lay-out can save an, almosty.

3.)  Does the “poem” begin with “I”? Yes?—usually deep-sixed, right now!

4.)  Does the “poem” have an inordinate number of “I’s” in the first stanza or evident throughout (content at this point, still has not come into play)—usually discarded. If we’re familiar with the author, and suspect, perhaps that the author is making a point by using a rash of empirical personal pronouns, we try to scan the piece on the way to the shredder.

5.)  Is the writer exercising their repertoire of foul language; glee in oozing, seeping, squirting  bodily fluids, fascination with their private parts or those of others, cruelty, pain, mayhem, shock value, and the worst: confessional whining. Out. Damn spot, out!

6.)  Is the “poem” concise and to the point (after all, it is a “short form” publication)? Is it concise? without juvenile elimination of: articles, definite articles, prepositions, conjunctions. Over use of adjectives, adverbs, interjections (yikes!) Godzilla B-movie like dialog will not make the grade—all you 17 syllable haikuists out there, take note. 

7.)  Is the “poem” written in an accessible (even conversational) manner. Is it easy to read and understand?

8.)  Is it interesting?

9.)  Hopefully at this point, there are no glaring grammatical or spelling errors.

10.) Is the type clear and crisp? Are the selections clear, isolated and laid out with enuff room to clip-n-snip.

11.)      Is your name located as requested one space below each “poem” and flush right to the column of that poem’s text?

12.)  As a general policy, Cheap Seats does not request changes—and we, ourselves, certainly do not make changes in any way. Sometimes, pl gets carried away trying to save a piece and will contact the author with a question or suggestion. The response to this has been heartening; most writers respond quickly and with reasonable “corrections”…or, they just don’t respond at all. (Sigh) Also good.

Hope these insider hints will help in improving your submittals to Cheap Seats, and perhaps to other publications. Tried to list our procedure from top to bottom as if a piece had just come into the Ford van office here in the meadow…we’re not really Hessians, but want to present your works with equivalently polished works—so everything is lookin’ so goood, plaits neatly together and is complimentary.

Looking forward to reading your “poems”,
Max tdc

Cheap Seats Ticket to Ride

P.O. Box 249

Empire, CO  80438-0249

back to:

Overcoming

Ref: January7,8,9,2k15

Q: ‘Ref’ing back to Overcoming: your itemizations pose some interesting points. How do the editors at Cheap Seats select those pieces to be used?'

                                        P. Evans: Temecula, CA

Q:  'Do editors (specifically those at Cheap Seats Ticket to Ride) subconsciously base their choices for inclusion on some sort of similar criteria as mentioned in Overcoming? Do they have a check list of accept/reject guidelines?'

                                R. Robins: Ushuaia, Patagonia

AA: Don’t know about the selection procedures of  “editors” at other publications. Here at Cheap Seats, our selection criteria is a bit different than most, I would surmise.

   The primary acceptance criteria of a piece with any publication, would have to be interest; is the piece interesting, accessible, uniquely written and professionally presented.

First one should realize there are primarily three types of publications: Full editorial control, no editorial control, and somewhere in between.

Full editorial control: this can range from draconian hob nail boot tactics to helpful suggestions and requests that are made to allow the writer to look good as well as comply with the publication’s criteria and desired content and appearance. Now these requests are usually handled via e-mail regardless, whether the submission was e-ed or mailed. This is where the real-deal editors show up.

No editorial control: the most prevalent (and depressing) of the “editorial” situations. Just send your material in and some faceless, sometimes nameless entity on the receiving end finds a spot in the publication for the “poems”; good or bad. Poetry anthologies operate along this line—although, they want to see the color of your money for a copy or two before printing someone’s/ anyone’s work.

   This scenario becomes even more depressing with the advent of on-line publishing: where the only “editorial input: is to have the site provided, and not monitored at all. Weep for the future of writing.

Somewhere in between: Small, usually ink and paper, publications many times fall into this category. Publications put together by a person or collective which is attempting to provide an outlet for writers (“poets”) to showcase their material.

   These small press productions many times operate directly from the materials sent in; cutting and pasting the submission (as in paper and glue pasting) into a mechanical or perhaps scanning the work and transferring to a publication template. This style of publication does not allow for any (or little) actual editorial input. The editorial oversight occurs primarily at the acceptance or rejection stage; the written works having to stand on their own merit from that point on.

to be continued…

Max tdc

misc notes on:

Sounds of Silence

Q: ‘So, what’s the solution?’

                                    G. S.: Evergreen,CO

A: Sorry, Iggy, but I’m afraid we’re too far into the whale’s belly to start wishing for a “solution.”

Better, start praying for a quick, painless expulsion.

As long as there is such a wanting, lackluster malaise applied to “poetry” beginning at the academic level; as long as there are mobs (and mobs) of wanna be writers (“poetry” hacks—anyone with a pencil) who have the unmitigated gall to call themselves   “poets,” yet, have neither the inclination nor the ethics to learn,  be held accountable, monitor, elevate and improve themselves and their familiars to consistent accessible results, so that others—those who know what it truly takes to achieve such ”laurels”—are willing to entitle such a writer as, a “poet.”… Then there will be no improvement, no general populace recognition; should be no peer recognition; will be no improvement in the pathetic niche in current literature that “poetry” tenuously occupies. No learning, no improvement, no growth.

Bye-bye birdie…

Just a short hint from a crazy ol’ cat who’s already into the nip-gin and rum soaked cigars today:

Casually reviewing a glancing history of poetry, one will find:

Popular writers (in this case poets), writers who have captured the peoples’ imagination, are those who write for the people, the general populace’s entertainment, not in some obscure elitist-speak, barely understandable even by other poetry writers of the same type tripe who see themselves as part of some elite secret society.

Accessibility. Mean anything to ya?

Example: Ol’ Bill Shake’s; fully capable of incredibly convoluted, deep, sonnets—and he probably would have preferred writing at that level and to that (minimal, elitist) audience had there been a market (shekels to be made)—instead, he ended up a wage slave to the Globe theater; writing plays filled with freaks, bawdy humor, perverted lust and incest, murder; mayhem and tortured, predictable plots for the general populace, which, was the desire of the aristocracy: keep the commoners in-humor. Not, that Shakespeare’s plays weren’t monuments to bluster and formulaic writing. They were, however, windows into what the average working man thinks, wants and longs after. And they are, now, considered an insight into how far our current comprehension level has deteriorated. How many readers today, even talking post grad level, can easily, confidently comprehend and explain Bill’s works…?

All hail our current, teach-to-test, academic instructional policy.

Another example: The Bard of the Yukon, Robert Service. Robert Service, seldom even recognized in the various who’s who of poets. What’s with that literati snub? Ol’ Bob wrote to entertain, elevate and provide the average reader an escape beyond their everyday world. He was the people’s poet and his works were wildly successful—actually, made a very comfortable living as a poet. (Try that today.) He wrote to the dreams, to the current trends and adventures that were capturing the adventure fantasies of the populace even in the newspapers as he crafted his Gold Rush tales. He didn’t write to entertain himself, or write down to his readership, he wrote to include them, in phrases and words that they would find accessible, an occasional challenge perhaps, but not so much as to trip the reader or make them feel foolish.

Sidebar: Robert Service, as many other popular versifiers of the early Century, did have an advantage—they were, first of all, accomplished, experienced prose writers, columnists, ensconced in acknowledged positions at leading newspapers of their day. Is there a lesson here…? a common thread…?

In closing:

Why do “poets” continue to flaunt their fragile grasp of literature, writing in unfocused ephemeral babble-speak? thinking they are impressing other than themselves. Twirling sparklers before those who are only mildly, temporarily curious of the fizzle and fire, gets you nowhere.

Max tdc