So, shortly before Labor Day, I came downstairs from our home office to our living room where my wife was patiently waiting for me to finish checking my email so we could enjoy the last hour or so together before I had to go to bed. To explain why I had taken unusually long on the computer, I told her, “I got an email from a publisher interested in my book. Sort of.”
Some background: I have been “shopping” my book-length collection of poems to publishers for approximately twenty months. With little success. By which I mean, of the twenty or so places that have received my MS (or a sample), I have gotten a response from about six of them. The others, apparently, don’t think I deserve a “no thanks” letter/email.
Of course, my wife was excited by this news. Then I explained. I probably don’t need to do too much explaining to you. The email I received was from Geoffrey Gatza, editor/publisher at BlazeVOX Books, who has received so much attention from the internet’s poetry community lately when he was condemned by Brett at Bark: A Blog of Literature, Culture, and Art, for requiring a $250.00 donation of the authors he accepts, a post which then went viral among the poetry community thanks to people like Christopher Higgs of HTMLGIANT, who ran a post titled “BlazeVOX Goes Vanity Press?”
I will discuss my decision regarding Mr. Gatza’s offer to publish my book for $250.00 later, but first, the comp/rhet/feminist/Marxist theorist in me is screaming for more context. So, read the following links:
From No Tell Motel/No Tell Books, two posts, both by Reb Livingston:
“No Tell Books Supports BlazeVOX Books”
“the ease of selling poetry books”
From Slope Editions, by Christopher Janke:
Four posts from Versal/wordsinhere, which do not deal directly with the BlazeVox controversy but are incredibly important to this conversation:
“A summary of advice, part 1”
“A summary of advice, part 2”
“A summary of advice, part 3”
“Oh, Whiny Writers. Or, on the use of the word "Repugnant" in response to a $2.00 submission fee.”
Anis Shivani’s Huffington Post article, which I’ve already linked to in a previous post:
“Poetry Book Contests Should be Abolished: Why Contests Are the Stupidest Way to Publish First Books”
And, finally, for now, friend and BlazeVOX author, Stacia Fleegal’s recent post:
“My Name Is Stacia Fleegal, and I Donated to BlazeVOX, Or, a Lesson in Word Choice for Writers Who Should Know Better”
Now, it only takes about a minute to google the term “vanity press” (holy aqua-Buddha, I’m using a Wikipedia link…) and get some basic information:
With vanity publishing, the author will pay to have their book published. Since the author is paying to have the book published the book doesn't go through an approval or editorial process as it would in a traditional setting where the publisher takes a financial risk on the author's ability to write successfully. Editing and formatting services may or may not be offered and they may come with the initial publishing fee (or more correctly, printing fee) or might be offered at an additional cost.
Self-publishers undertake the functions of a publisher for his or her own book. The classic "self-publisher" writes, edits, designs, lays out, markets, and promotes the book themselves, relying on a printer only for actual printing and binding.
More recently, companies have offered their services to act as a sort of agent between the writer and a small printing operation. In these cases, the distinction between self-publishing and vanity publishing is less obvious than it once was.An important point here: “the book doesn't go through an approval or editorial process…” According to Gatza’s email to me, “Of the 928 manuscripts I received I choose 30 books to publish to finish out the year. There was a real system in choosing these texts and in my opinion this is better than holding a contest.” Fleegal makes a similar point in her post.
Unfortunately, duotrope has removed the BlazeVOX listing. Had they not, we could use their acceptance/rejection statistics to confirm whether or not there is an approval or editorial process. Sadly, we will have to wait for some brave soul to come forward and admit his/her book was rejected by BlazeVOX. With all the talk condemning BlazeVOX, I highly doubt anyone will admit they were rejected by what so many are now calling a vanity press.
But, it takes just a little effort to google the term “co-op publishing” (and you don’t find a Wikipedia link at the top!). According to the Fearless Books “How to Get Published” Guide:
A recent development in alternative publishing is the rise of co-op publishers, who charge authors fees for the production and publication of their works. This method is a step above traditional “vanity publishing,” in which authors bear the full cost of publication for a very small number of conventionally printed books.The lines are blurry. But, I would point you back to BlazeVOX’s mission statement/slogan: “a refuge for innovative fictions and wide ranging fields of contemporary poetry. We are an independent publisher of weird little books.” BlazeVOX proudly publishes books that otherwise would not be published, books that are out of the mainstream, books that are weird, books that are political, books that traditional publishers are never going to touch. And for that I commend them. I also acknowledge that, within a culture where poetry already doesn’t make any money for anyone (except a very select few), BlazeVOX is publishing books that are going to have even worse commercial viability. Asking authors to invest in this “innovative publisher of weird little books” is not inherently evil, corrupt or immoral.
For more on the difference between vanity presses and co-op presses, I turn to Michael J. Bugeja’s Poet’s Guide: How to Publish and Perform Your Work (SLP Writers’ Guide, 1995), which, though seriously old, still offers some valuable distinctions. On co-operative publishing, Bugeja writes:
The poet works with the publisher and shares the burdens of publication.
Because of the declining market for poetry and the increasing costs of publication, a few smaller commercial publishers and many small presses require the poet to bear some of the risk involved in publishing a work…
Some cooperative agreements require the poet to pay certain costs of production. Others require the poet to participate in the printing or marketing phases of production. A few require the poet to contribute money in a fund for books by other poets … In any case, cooperative publishing is highly respected by the literary establishment, and you should look into it if you cannot place your collections with publishers offering standard contracts.And on vanity/subsidy presses, he writes:
A subsidy company guarantees acceptance of your manuscript, and you pay all costs…
Some agreements are less predatory than others, but all bank on your general ignorance of publishing and willingness to pay handsomely to see your byline on a book.I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees the difference between PublishAmerica, accepting everything and asking the poet to pay all costs and BlazeVox, presumably accepting 0.03% of manuscripts and asking those who are accepted to contribute 10-15% of publishing costs.
In the end, after much consideration, I ultimately declined Mr. Gatza’s offer. Not because I was offended, as so many poets seem to be, by Gatza’s business model. But rather it was because right now I cannot afford the $250.00. Also, having recently done a whole-MS revision during which the vision/argument of my book completely changed, I’m no longer convinced the MS fits the BlazeVOX line anymore.
I have no problem with the co-op model and am pretty sure more publishers will be moving this way in the near future. The only problem I can see in the way BlazeVOX publishes is that the co-op policy is not mentioned on the website. This is a moot point now as most everyone knows the policy. But Gatza should put it on the web site and include an explanation of why BlazeVOX publishes this way and how this is a better model than the now-traditional reading fee/contest model of publishing poetry (you should also know, if you don’t already, that BlazeVox does not charge a reading fee or run contests).
But I didn’t write this long blog post to talk about BlazeVOX Books. BlazeVOX Books, despite the attention it is getting, is not the disease. It is only a symptom.
Writing poetry is an art. Publishing poetry is an industry. Selling poetry is a business.
In the twenty first century, poetry has no working business model. The business of poetry is in dire straights. Hence publishers rely on grants, endowments, contest fees, reading fees and co-ops. Unfortunately, the economy is drying up donors and republicans across the country are cutting funding for and/or closing down organizations that provide grants for the arts. In addition to that, as noted by William Pierce of AGNI, in a 2006 interview with NewPages, “The stereotype is that lit mags are read by no one, and bought only by writers who want to appear in them. Dana Gioia [director of the National Endowment for the Arts] seems to accept the stereotype, and he’s been working to minimize the federal grant money supporting them.” Take that sentiment and amplify it for books of poetry, especially first books of poetry.
The result has been publishers turning almost exclusively to contests or to charging reading fees. Those who do not, close down for lack of funding. Why? The fact is that there are more poets than there are readers of poetry. This cannot sustain an industry.
There is no silver bullet to this problem, but that does not make it any less of a problem. The industry needs solutions so the business can continue. Otherwise, you can kiss the art goodbye.
Co-ops are one solution. Here, the artists invest with the business for the good of the industry. This is also, in my opinion, a much more fair system than the contest/reading fee system. Think about it. In a co-op, if it is done correctly, there should be no reading fees. Therefore, if you submit your work and are rejected, then you have paid no money. You only pay if you are accepted. You only invest in/support your work.
On the flip side, for reading fees and contest fees, you pay anywhere from ten dollars to thirty dollars just to have your work read. If you are accepted, great! Hey, if it’s a contest, you may even get some money out of the deal. However, if you are rejected, you get zilch. In the contest/reading fee system, you pay the winning author. You pay the contest judge. You pay the production costs of the book. You pay for the (limited) publicity. And many times, you don’t even get a copy of the winning book.
The production costs of all poetry books are subsidized in one way or another, often by authors. In co-ops, though, only the publisher and the published author are required to make that investment.
While reading about the controversy over BlazeVOX, I came across another potential solution that is worth discussing. Change the system of reading fees/contest fees by boycotting any publishers who charge reading fees or who run contests. Now, some publishers have both contests and open submissions, so I’m not sure whether we would be boycotting these publishers. I’m also not sure if we are only boycotting submitting to these publisher or if we are boycotting them for real, by which I mean we are no longer buying their books. This seems neither feasible nor reasonable nor practical. After all, the problem of there not being enough readers would still exist. The only real change would be that there would be fewer publishers (as many would have to close down). This, in turn, would put greater pressure on the remaining un-boycotted publishers, who would likely have to hire more readers to deal with the exponential increase in submissions, which would of course cost the publisher even more (without, necessarily, assuring greater sales).
But more to the point, consider what publishers and what authors you would be boycotting.
Seriously. Name me any publishers who accept unsolicited manuscripts of first books who also don't have reading fees or run contests? Off the top of my head I can only think of Press 53 (though they do run an individual poem contest) and Word Press.
But what about another solution? What if we all just bought more books of poetry? What if we all bought more books by smaller presses? What if we all bought more first books? What if we all bought books by people we’ve never heard of? What if we put our money where our art is?
Between September 1 and December 31, 2010, Tin House asked writers to include with their submissions a receipt showing they had recently bought a book. They called this their “Buy a Book, Save a Bookstore Campaign.” According to their website, “We experienced the good, the bad, and the ugly in response, but overall were encouraged by thousands of good words about bookstores.” They have returned to their normal submission process (though they continue to encourage writers to support bookstores).
I have one question for Tin House: What ugly? How could any writer, who hopes to publish in a journal and ultimately publish a book, which I assume they would want in a bookstore, how could he/she possibly be upset by a journal asking that writer to support a bookstore? Seriously?
This, to me, is the best solution to the co-op/reading fee/contest business models. Publishers should require the following: if you want to send your manuscript to us, send us a receipt that shows you have bought one, two, or three (I prefer three but two might be more reasonable) books of poetry within the last six to twelve months from a publisher other than us. In other words, if you are submitting to BlazeVox, show us you’ve bought a book from Sarabande and a book from Alice James Books.
There should be some stipulations here. For example, Knopff and Norton and other giant publishers like them should not be counted. But the basic idea is here. Buy books by people and publishers who need the financial support. In return, we’ll consider your manuscript. If enough publishers use this model, it is possible that readers will be buying books from all the publishers, thus creating the financial stimulus needed to keep all the publishers afloat.
Sarabande and Cooper Dillon already use a similar strategy. If you submit during their open reading periods, they will wave the reading fee if you buy one of their books. Imaginary Friend Press, who published my chapbook, also employ a similar publishing model. They don’t post their submission guidelines anywhere. Instead, if you want them to send you their guidelines, you first have to buy one of their chapbooks.
This is just a theory. It is still rough around the edges. But it could work. Or, at least, it could be a start. Until poets are willing to buy books of poetry – lots of books of poetry by lots of different poets and published by lots of different publishers – until then, poets will have to accept reading fees, contest fees and co-ops from publishers, big and small, who also will have to rely on grants and donations just to break even.
P.S. You should already own the complete works of Whitman, Dickinson and Neruda. By all means, keep buying new work by Collins, Hoagland, Levine, Olds, etc… I do. But I also buy books from a lot of people you’ve probably never heard of.
Neighborhood Register by Marcus Jackson
The Far Mosque by Kazim Ali
Fragment of the Head of a Queen by Cate Marvin