Home | RED FLAGS | ORANGE FLAGS | WHAT GETS PUBLISHED... | SAND TRAPS

[updated 12/06/2004]

RED FLAGS: What gets automatically rejected when you submit to any respectable publication.

A work with any careless spelling, grammar or mechanical errors...

A work with any clichés (e.g. “our love is like a red, red rose”), overly obvious symbols (e.g. "hearts" for love), overly predictable subjects (e.g. unrequited love poems that do not do anything original or innovative with the theme), sentimentality (e.g. elegies that do not reveal enough of a character or a situation so that a reader cannot really care as much as the poet would wish) etc.

A work that relies heavily on vague overgeneralizations, generic statements, and/or abstract nouns, and/or says things that are universally true but also universally obvious, e.g. "love is a special feeling," "friends are what life's about," etc. These things are fine for greeting cards, but there is a reason why "greeting card verse" is an insult to poets. It means the work lacks depth and that the writer failed to go beyond the obvious; there is nothing challenging or intriguing or original about "greeting card verse."

A work that uses archaic language e.g. “thee,” “thou” and other old poeticisms such as inverted syntax. (On rare occasions poets self-consciously revert to archaisms to make a point. It's very hard to get away with this unless you are T. S. Eliot or someone like that.)

A work that forces rhymes or rhymes too obviously or predictably.

A work that is melodramatic. Just for laughs, click here for a definition of melodramatic and an example (as a PDF file).

A work in a specific genre that the publication never publishes, e.g. sending a graphic, erotic lesbian love poem to Better Homes and Gardens.

A work that denigrates, attacks, harasses, slanders, insults or libels the editors and/or staff of the publication (the rest of humanity can fend for itself).

ORANGE FLAGS: What gets rejected by most respectable publications (UNLESS you’re famous.)

A work that is monotonous, dull, predictable, stale, unimaginative, or generic.

A work with careless or wrong diction or unintentionally awkward rhythms and sounds.

A work that follows an old formula, such as heroic couplets or blank verse, without adding anything new or innovative to the material or technique.

A work that gushes with sentimentality or reaches for effect (e.g. poems to a beloved who is in no way distinguished from any generic loved one, or poems to a great mom who is in no way distinguished from any generic mom etc.) and loses credibility (e.g. "he was so depressed that night started coming more frequently...") See the example of "melodramatic," above.

A work that sensationalizes its theme or subject excessively without showing understanding of the subject (e.g. poems about war, violence or death which reveal an obvious lack of experience or knowledge about the theme).

* This is also a checklist to help you when you are revising your works for your final portfolios!

What gets published by the great, the good, and the well-known journals and literary magazines?

First, editors tend to select work that is original, engaging, strong, complete, and which shows an understanding and appreciation of what aesthetic is currently in the publication!

Editors also gravitate toward work that feels contemporary, confident, genuine, and fully realized in whatever aesthetic they prefer.

Some editors gravitate toward work that feels really new, i.e. ground-breaking or avant-garde.

Some editors are looking for a very specific type of poetry, i.e. they will reject everything that does not fit their special niche in (or angle on) poetics.

Admittedly, some (bad) editors will publish their friends, rich patrons, and formerly great famous poets and writers! (This is true even of some very high profile journals, which shall not be named. Every poet in Po' Biz has known some of these editors.)

If you can write a successful love poem or unrequited love poem (or any other very familiar theme) in a way that is original and feels authentic, immediate, compelling, and fully alive, then congratulations—it is very hard to do these kinds of things well now. But there are still editors who love this work!

SAND TRAPS—HOW POETS DIG THEMSELVES INTO A HOLE

The ambiguity sand trap goes like this: “I want my poem to mean anything to anyone.” I could write “X” on a piece of paper and call it “Ambiguity,” but who would care about that poem?

The universality sand trap goes like this: “I want my poem to be more universal, so I’m leaving out all the specific things.” There are a lot of things that are universally true and universally obvious and, therefore, universally unoriginal and uninteresting. For example, saying things like: “unconditional love is greater than faithless love” or “There’s nothing like a mother’s love” etc.