The Half-Hearted Acceptance Letter
The other day I got some good news, or so I thought. My poetry manuscript, which I’ve been shaping ever since I graduated from Eastern Washington’s MFA program in 2007, was accepted by BlazeVOX Books. Nevertheless, as I delved into the long letter, it became apparent that the publication offer was contingent on a monetary donation ($250, to be exact). This took me by complete surprise; over the course of the next day and a half (and a handful of emails), my initial elation turned to discontent, and then to near despair. Here’s what happened.
Let’s start with the initial letter.
Subject: Re: Submission, Brett Ortler, 12/12/10
From: Geoffrey Gatza
To: Brett Ortler (both email addresses redacted)
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011 1:09 PMHello Brett,
I have read your manuscript and I am really taken with this text. I would like to offer you a situation with our upcoming Fall/Winter 2011 schedule. However we are still recovering from our recent crisis and working towards being better than ever. Due to the recent economic upheaval, most of our funding sources collapsed. But this does not mean we plan to stop publishing.
In the spirit of cooperation, we are asking you to help fund the production of your book. We have done this for the past two years and it seems to be working out very positively. Over $2000 goes into the production of a book with BlazeVOX and we are hoping you will donate $250 to the press to help meet the costs of our budgeted year. To briefly explain, we just lost another major donor this year and I want to publish books, but it takes some money to do so. It takes $2000 to make a book and I am asking a few folks whose books are very, very good to help in the publication cost of that book. So I am asking folks to help out in the publication costs. 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. I have been in that room before and I am not fond of people paying $40 to have a fist year grad student pick through a box of manuscripts to find something they like. This way, we choose good books and if they can help pay 12% of the total cost it takes to get a title into print. I am sure that there are better ways to do this but in our turbulent times it is hard to get people to fund poetry and experimental fiction. I am sorry if this upsetting and I understand completely. But this is in the spirit of a co-op and without money nothing can be done.
I will be happy to publish this as an ebook / Kindle book should you wish to skip the donation :-)
This donation would give you a book with BlazeVOX [books], this includes ISBN, barcode, full color cover, sales at SPD and Amazon.com; a BlazeVOX [books] webpage and listing catalog. Our books are consistently reviewed by the finest publications, including The Nation TriQuarterly, The Believer and events at the Poetry and Literature Center @ Library of Congress, and we have a standing order from the Iowa Review and Jacket2. You can make your donation here,
http://www.blazevox.org/index.php/publication-offer/
Thank you again for sending your work to BlazeVOX [books]. Our goal is to publish great poetry and this fits that category. If you can help that is wonderful, if not no worries and we’ll be back up and together in the future.
Best, Geoffrey
BlazeVOX [books]
Holy Cats! A new webpagehttp://www.blazevox.org
The request for a donation immediately took me by surprise, as I do quite a bit of research about each press where I send my work. I acquaint myself with their catalog, the writers they publish, the styles they prefer, and their respective editors, and I take pains to make sure my work fits in with the style.
I also obsess over the submission guidelines in order to make sure I’m sending what I think the editors want and in the format they want it. If they want me to hum the theme to the Peanuts while I click the “submit” button, I do it. (Plus, it’s great music for dancing wildly, which is a hobby of mine.)
Most importantly, I never submit to presses that charge reading fees or require financial contributions from authors, as both tend to be hallmarks of vanity presses and because I simply don’t want to pay to have my own work published. Call it vanity, ego, stubbornness, whatever you want; in my mind, paying to publish simply seems less legitimate. As far as I knew, BlazeVOX didn’t charge prospective authors. But it’d been over a year since I submitted, so I went to double-check the submission guidelines; maybe I’d made a mistake.
I hadn’t. As of this writing, the submission guidelines didn’t mention requiring authors to donate; if anything, the guidelines indicated that the press was quite generous towards authors, as they gave them a sizable discount when purchasing copies of their own work.
This all struck me as quite strange, as it was out of keeping with what I knew about BlazeVOX, and its reputation as a press. To be sure, BlazeVOX’s editor, Geoffrey Gatza, publishes some fine poetry, including work by Tom Holmes and Stacia Fleegal, both writers whom I admire. The books are absolutely beautiful. It’s quite clear he knows what he’s doing. And I really wanted my book to be issued by BlazeVOX.
So I went back to the letter and read it again. It looked like a form letter. My manuscript title wasn’t mentioned, though my first name was, and I immediately began to suspect a mail merge or something to that effect. After that, I clicked on the “donate” link, as I wanted to see what it had to say. The text was quite familiar, as it was a reworked version of the letter I’d received.
The more times I read the letter, the more questions I had. The original letter noted that he was asking “a few folks whose books are very, very good to help in the publication cost of that book,” so it seemed that not all authors were being asked to contribute. That seemed unfair, as it meant there were two classes of books he’d accepted; books he was willing to publish for free—let’s call them Freebies—and those he was willing to publish if the authors contributed—let’s call them Me-bies.
And if that were the case, I wanted to know how many Freebies and Me-bies existed, and I wanted to know if publication was absolutely contingent on a donation. I therefore sent along the following note.
On 9/1/11 3:44 PM, “brett ortler” wrote:
Dear Mr. Gatza,
Thank you for your interest in my manuscript, and for your offer. I’m going to have to give it some thought, as I don’t quite know how I feel about the compulsory donation policy. I certainly understand the impact of the lousy economy (and of selling/producing literature generally), so I’m not dismissing this idea out of hand. Nonetheless, it’s a rather new idea, and to be frank, one that seems somewhat unsettling, at least at first blush.
Before I decide, I’d like more information. I have a few questions about the policy.
(1) Am I correct in assuming that not every book you publish is subject to this policy? If so, can you tell me what percentage of authors are asked to donate?
(2) Also, if you don’t mind, how many such offers have you made?
(3) In addition, is this offer open to everyone who finds the link on your site, or is publication contingent upon your acceptance of the manuscript beforehand?
Thanks, and take care,
Brett Ortler
I received this response:
Hello Brett,
I did send this letter to a 30 folk with the hopes of getting 15 people. No scams at all.
To briefly explain, we just lost a major donor this year and I want to publish these books, but it takes some money to do so. It takes $2000 to make a book and I am asking a few folks who’s books are very very good to help in the publication cost of that book. Please know that I do like your book and I do like a lot of other books. This week, I sent out mailings to authors for the upcoming season. So far a lot have taken me up on this deal, as this is a fine way of doing things. As I said, our major funder could not help us this year due to a recent financial scandal, their money is gone. So I am asking folks to help out in the publication costs. Of the 423 manuscripts I received I choose 30 books to publish from this lot. There was a real system in choosing these texts and in my opinion this is better than me holding a contest. I have been in that room before and I am not fond of people paying $40 to have a first year grad student pick through a box of manuscripts to find something they like. This way, we choose good books and if they can help pay 12% of the total $2000 it takes to get a title into print. I am sure that there are better ways to do this but in our turbulent times it is hard to get people to fund poetry and experimental fiction. I am sorry if this upsetting and I understand completely. But this is in the spirit of a co-op and without money nothing can be done.
Also, we chose this way as opposed to having authors pay have the cover prince for their own books as my own books are published. Each book is sold to the author for about $3 where at other presses, like the ones who publish me, ask for $8 per copy. So in the long run the amount of $250 in the beginning is a lot less than the author ordering books at a higher rate than they are produced. Example,
100 x 3 = $300
100 x 8 = $800
So in this model the other press makes five hundred more on the same book than we are asking. So this is how we are justifying things. I hope this also helps!
Best, Geoffrey
His response was surprisingly slapdash, full of typos and vague assurances that he was only asking “a few folks who’s [sic] books are very very good” to contribute. While I’m sure Mr. Gatza was simply busy, this didn’t inspire confidence. And I couldn’t shake the impression that the letters bore a superficial resemblance to a 419 scam (the email confidence scams that are perpetually flying around.) All that was missing was a far-flung princess ready to wire me millions of Euros.
Worse yet, he didn’t directly address all of my questions. While he let me know how many folks he’d asked for donations (30), confirmed my suspicions that I’d received a form letter, and implied that not all of the authors had to pay for their work, he’d also never answered the big question—whether my work would be rejected if I opted not to donate.
While I pondered this strange situation, I did the math. He sent his letter to 30 writers, hoping to land 15 donations. If he did so, that’d produce $3,750 in donations. Now this may be a coincidence, but I noticed that his donations page is talking up his press’s need for a new computer, one that runs about $1,300. If one does the math and assumes 75 percent of folks will turn him down, which seems more realistic, those 7 or so acceptances will take care of it.
I also considered his economic argument. I can certainly understand it. I’ve spent a good deal of my life in literary land, and money’s always been tight. That’s doubly or triply true now, and good presses need things like computers and software and the like. And yes, when donors disappear, one needs to come up with other ways to generate revenue, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a business model based upon a cooperative, or even BlazeVOX’s specific ($250 bucks for a book) policy.
Nevertheless, I didn’t intend to send my work to a press with such a business model. On the contrary, I sent my work to presses that operate under a few widely held principles:
(1) Generally speaking, literary presses do not charge for reviewing submissions unless we’re talking about a contest, in which case an entry fee is justifiable due to the necessity to drum up prize money and pay for a judge’s honorarium. (Full disclosure: I’ve run two contests at Knockout, one with an entry fee of $5 and one with $12; for both contests we awarded a good deal of prize money. The rest went to funding Knockout. We are not a 501(c) but we are an unincorporated nonprofit association under Minnesota law.)
(2) If literary presses do charge a fee for anything (contests, reading submissions, etc.), they should be upfront about it and this information should be included in submission guidelines and FAQ pages so the reader knows what to expect and whether they still want to submit.
(3) Most importantly, when a writer sends their work along, they
always operate on the assumption that presses choose the best work, and only the best work, to publish.
From all outward appearances, BlazeVOX shares these assumptions, but when I asked directly if my work would still be published if I didn’t donate, I received a brusk, and disheartening response:
Subject: Re: Submission, Brett Ortler, 12/12/10
From: Geoffrey Gatza
To: Brett Ortler
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011 2:16 PMHi Brett,
No of course not. I know this situation is awful. it’s hard on me so I can only image how you feel. But your work is wonderful and I really do dig on it. We will keep your work on file, and do send it out. There are presses who are not so hit by this crisis. Hurray on you and your writing, keep up the great work.
Best, Geoffrey
At this point it became clear that my book wouldn’t be released by BlazeVOX; nevertheless, there was no way in hell I was going to “donate” money in such a manner, as it felt like a variety of coercion. Even if I did it’d be hardly fair to call it a donation at all; if a monetary contribution is required for publication, it’s not a donation, it’s a payment.
Worse than that, it’s quite clear that he doesn’t publish only the best work he gets; there’s a group of second-class work that he relies upon for his donations. And that’s the hardest part to stomach. It seems he wanted my money more than my work. If he didn’t, he would have accepted the work despite the lack of donation.
All of this amounts to a serious violation of trust, as Mr. Gatza withheld crucial information from would-be authors. Instead of letting writers know what to expect in advance, Mr. Gatza springs this arrangement on the would-be author suddenly. From the prospective author’s point of view, it feels like a sleight of hand; now you see yourself being a BlazeVOX author, now you don’t.
All of this is disingenous and unethical, as it preys upon writers in perhaps their most vulnerable state (on the cusp of acceptance). To rectify this, I asked Mr. Gatza to at least “include a mention of this policy on your website, including the donation amounts and point out that not all acceptances are subject to ‘donations,’ outlining pertinent statistics.”
Unfortunately, he didn’t address my calls for a change to a website, but he did respond with:
Your work is very good and I choose it not because you are on some tier but because it is good. Your manuscript will do just fine at another press with better funding situations. I understand your concerns and admire how you worked this all out. I didn’t realize you would be so upset by this in such a way. I have had several spots taken by this method and it has worked out well. You are correct that this is a bad option but we are trying to survive in a world that does not support poetry, either readers buying books or communities that support presses. Something must be done to keep poetry alive and well and this is how we have managed to do this. In this offer I also offered to publish the work as an ebook which gets about 6000 readers and costs nothing to make except the work in designing a book. A printed book gets about 300 readers if lucky. I believe that you are misinformed about how well a book of poetry does in the markets today and what it costs to get a book into production. This is not a rejection on you or your work, but a critique on what the world values on our art form.
While I found that his response tempered some of my initial anger; I was a bit puzzled, because in my previous emails I’d never claimed that poetry sells well, or anything to that effect. (Belive me, I know it doesn’t. I run a literary magazine; when you get a sale, you’re so happy you feel compelled to do a little dance.)
And while I again sympathized with his economic argument, he’s still withholding important information from writers and he’s doing it for one hell of a spurious reason: to get money from some of them.
Of course, I can hypothesize about why he wouldn’t want to let writers know about this policy, and none of them reflect particularly well on the policy or its current implementation. First, it seems likes it’s a relatively easy way to raise funds. In addition, I’m sure that if this policy were made public he’d get fewer submissions, as many writers would opt not to submit their work. (I wouldn’t have submitted my work there had I know about this policy.) More than that, if writers were aware that some were required to paid while others were not, he might have something of a rebellion on his hands, and the paying writers may take umbrage. There’s also the likelihood that BlazeVOX would lose credibility in the literary world if it were common knowledge that they charge for publication. (Duotrope removed their listing for BlazeVOX Books because of the payment policy.)
With all that said, if he were upfront and open about his policy, I’d have no real problem with any of this; it may be even be a valuable contribution to the literary community. It just wouldn’t be for me. Unfortunately, I found that out the hard way; a half-hearted acceptance is one hell of a wrenching rejection.
While I may seem ungrateful or simply stubborn, I view this as an instance of applied ethics. (I teach ethics as part of of my critical thinking courses.) In its current form, Mr. Gatza’s policy isn’t fair, and what he’s doing is wrong, as he’s using writers as a mere means to an end: to get money.
Needless to say, I also don’t want anyone else to go through this unawares. I’d therefore like to make a public call for Mr. Gatza to amend his submission guidelines and website to include information about this policy, the amounts he’ll expect of other authors, and the like.
So far, he’s ignored my requests. I just checked his website again, on the offchance that he’s had a change of heart.
Unfortunately, I’m still waiting.
I have mixed feelings about this because, as you, I know how difficult it is to publish poetry/short fiction. For 10 years we have struggled. This involves huge amount of my personal time and money. There are times when I have had to personally pay for things like shipping books, after spending countless hours working on a manuscript out of love only, and then have an author make demands or expect payment without even trying to sell their book. People do not just buy poetry. Even if you spend money marketing — it makes no difference. You might want to consider giving the guy some slack. I very much doubt any profit is made.
No wonder poets have become so obscure and obsolete in our society. I am laughing over here reading how angry people are at BlazeVOX, who at worst are pressuring those who will inevitably gain incredibly more benefit in return, and who at least do need to update their submissions policies–while almost every other poetry press in existence (and now many fiction and non-fiction presses) is squeezing people upfront through contests (many of which are rigged, phony, or poorly run by kids in their early 20s)–contests in which the sheer numbers alone give one really no hope. And if it’s not a contest, it’s a reading fee. The poet game in America became pay-to-play long ago, and that’s when the life of poetry drained away. You see, if you want to publish a book in America, you have to have money–extra money. I make just enough to barely pay my bills. That means there is very little variety in what is being published, very few viewpoints. I think the street artists have something right, and I think it’s high time the poets learned from them. As for BlazeVOX, at least you would actually get something out of your small donation. How many of you have spent twice as much, or three times as much, entering everything from Yale Younger Poets down to Crab Orchard Review Series. And where are you now, O minor and forgettable poet? And as for the “winners”, when was the last time one of these poems actually moved you? The last poem I read that moved me was from beyond these shores–people who are really living and not acting so petty. BlazeVOX is one of the few publishers here that I can think of that even comes close to doing something revolutionary.
and it costs a lot of money keep a press going… the book itself may not cost 2000, but you can get to that number easily if you divide all the maintenance costs of keeping a press running by the books published.
On the other hand, it does seem wrong to send the letter out to 30 people. The work should be the most important thing and this doesn’t reflect that.
There’s been a goodly amount of name calling in this discussion. My opinion is that Brett’s comments are well taken. Asking for upfront transparency in a publisher’s policies is appropriate. All poets know that there’s little money to made in publishing their work. That said, the business end of poetry also knows the stigma of a vanity publishing. On one hand, Geoffrey expresses value for Brett’s poetry, and on the other, he devalues the work by asking the author to go against accepted publishing practices. We’re all seasoned consumers in a consumerist society. What BlazeVOX offered was a bait and switch tactic. As a ‘legitimate’ press, their ways and means match those of on-line scam artists. Time to rethink, BlazeVOX.
Hello everyone. I know a lot of you who are posting, so I thought I’d say a couple of things as a proud Blazevox author who took “the deal.”
I very much understand the confusion and concern about transparency and credibility. I think, as many have discussed, the situation touches a much larger nerve than what’s being specifically discussed about recent Blazevox acceptance/contribution policies.
I would like to say, in defense of Geoffrey Gatza, he worked very hard with me on my book Crying Shame. There was nothing boilerplate about that process. I’m not easy to work with. I’m very particular and I work slowly. We went through four proofs and it took well over a year. I went with Blazevox and “the deal” because so many of the books they’ve put out have been great.
At the risk of sounding immodest, I believe strongly that my book is very good. It took me many years. Anyone who needs third-party verification before reading it can look at the acknowledgements, I suppose. But please don’t take my word for it. I’ll send anyone who wants one a free review copy, just ask (jwm222 at hotmail dot com).
For me, the issue was and is: Is the work Blazevox publishes consistently interesting or not? It is, very much so, in my opinion. That’s the only important thing, it seems to me.
That being said, I don’t think Brett was wrong or out-of-bounds for bringing up an issue that’s clearly worth discussing. Word up, Brett. I think what writers want from a publishing relationship is far from monolithic. I doubt anyone falls in or out of love with a writer’s words because of these important things we are talking about.
Very sincerely,
Jeffrey Morgan
This post and many of the comments are rather unbelievable. Mr. Ortler claims he does not need to be lectured on the economics of poetry publishing, but much that he and others have written here bespeak an ignorance of non-corporate publishing models and, one suspects, a whiff of elitism. May I ask what you all spent last year to enter, in many cases rigged contests? And may I ask how THAT is different from vanity publishing? And let’s not forget the money spent for that MFA, and buying those books of your professors, and going to AWP and all those other conferences. But to GIVE money to an obviously sincere and committed poetry publisher? Scandalous! BlazeVOX offers— for I dearly hope it continues— a revolutionary publishing model and a lively alternative to all the muck out there. As a BlazeVOX author, I can tell you that I did not have to pay one cent to get the work published. Kudos to Kyle, David H. & others for trying to set the record straight. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go read some vanity press authors; I think I’ll start with Whitman, Reznikoff and Stein.
Mark, like so many other negative commenters, you seem to have missed the main point of Brett’s post. He has said (as have many other commenters) that paying for publishing, in and of itself, is not a terrible thing. But to do so without providing an up-front explanation of it is questionable at best. There’s nothing elitist about wanting to have a reasonable conversation and understanding of what both parties are getting into. There’s nothing wrong at all with giving money to an obviously sincere and committed poetry publisher. There’s also nothing wrong with giving money to contests or going to AWP; the difference is you know ahead of time that you’re paying. As Brett noted, if he’d known about the paying policy, he wouldn’t have sent his manuscript. That’s his right, just as it’s yours or anybody else’s to be pleased with that arrangement. But withholding that info and then avoiding answering his questions? That does seem unbelievable.
Once again, Marcus, Geoffrey did NOT avoid Brett’s questions. Shame on you for continuing to parrot Brett’s unbelievably slipshod reading of Geoffrey’s response..
Of course, that should be “bespeaks.” Mea culpa.
[...] new publishing practices of BlazeVox, a small press he really admires and had submitted work to. The blog post, and follow-ups are really fascinating reads, and you should also check on the comments. Most [...]
[...] Category: Advice, Editor's Picks, Essays, From the Interweb, Reading Horror(s) By Brett, from Bark Blog / September 3, [...]
Dear Brett,
you speak of “a serious violation of trust” on the part of BlazeVOX’s editor, however, it appears you didn’t mention to Geoffrey Gatza that you would be publishing his responses to you on your blog. I fear this puts the ethics of your journalism at odds with your concerns for trust between writer and editor.
This “donation” issue is a matter of some importance of course, but in the tiny-press world there are plenty of instances of financial collaboration between authors and their publishers, most of which probably lie undetected and may be mutually beneficial to both parties as well as to readers of non-commercial literature. Many small publishers are *not* incorporated as either for- or not-for-profit, so there is no separation in finances between their personal accounts and those of their publishing ventures (moreover, unlike the financials of non-profits, their financial information is not available to the public), so we can’t really determine what’s going on in the wild wild world of “small press publishing.”
Singling out Geoffrey Gatza and entrapping him in a conversation about the finances of his press and the contributions made by his authors (quite small compared to university subventions and miniscule compared to the amounts other presses garnish from reading fees and contest fees before they’ve even selected a manuscript) might be just as unfair as asking an author to make a donation (or “payment” as you call it) after accepting his manuscript. (See Patrick Madden’s level-headed comments to this post.)
I agree with many others that Geoffrey Gatza may have put more care into crafting his responses. And perhaps he was naive about the implicit privacy of personal correspondence. However, his agreements with his authors have little to do with the quality of the works he has published, at least in my eyes. (Think of the ex-pat modernist presses and all their publishing practices… can we really decipher how the money moved around then, and in the end, aren’t we better off for having those books. It’s not like anyone was making money to live on in publishing that stuff until Random House took on Ulysses… once others had fought for its literary legitimacy and against its being censored.)
In his response, Geoffrey Gatza mentions a “cooperative” model, and that is actually quite interesting in today’s context which is quite heavily weighted toward the manuscript contest model, which has been exposed for its inevitable ethically-questionable results, but still persists without any presses closing up shop or doing away with their contest fees. I wonder what would have happened had — as you recommend — Geoffrey been more transparent in his description of his selection process and the cooperative model from the get go… I would applaud it, but in our indy-culture it is oddly taboo! That’s an interesting development (perhaps coming out of the MFA culture) since, after all, most of the objectivists, among countless others we value today, published their first books “privately”. And yet again, while paying for our work to be published is taboo (I certainly can’t abide the iUniverse model because there’s zero curation in making money off people who can’t find a publisher), we are somehow unfazed by reading fees and contest fees, as though we believe in the legitimacy — only abstractly possible — of a merit-based “winner”.
I can see why you (and others) are angered about the acceptance-cum-stipulation you received from BlazeVOX. I only wish that the kind of energy of ire displayed in your essay and in the comments that followed were directed at the federal and state politicians who have cut arts funding, especially the funding of literary presses.
Sincerely,
Matvei Yankelevich
As you might expect, most of the early comments are self-righteously indignant, while many of the later comments are intelligent, measured, and calm. Also, a fair number of the overreacting comments are anonymous (cowardly) while the fair-minded ones are signed with real names. Thanks, Matvei, for another perspicacious view of the situation. We writers are a small tribe. Let’s now fight amongst ourselves so much.
ARGH! Let’s NOT fight amongst ourselves so much. (Especially, let us forgive each other our typos.)
I have to admit that I am completely surprised by your response to Brett’s blog post. First, you make the claim that Brett has violated his own ethics as a journalist for revealing his email exchange with Geoffrey Gatza. But that couldn’t be further from the truth as the essence of his profession is to reveal that which he deems truthful (it is up to us to decide whether such a truth is applicable to our own lives).
Furthermore, It is within Brett’s right to inquire into the validity of a press that claims to want to publish him for a small fee of $250.
I believe that it was Brett’s intention to reveal a potential (and actual) weakness in Gatza’s business model. The problem seems that Gatza doesn’t have a model – his lackluster emails reveal as much.
With that being said, this does not mean that I will disregard Blazevox as a press, but will consider such a press with open eyes, as I do with anything in my life, political, or personal.
Did you come to Evergreen a few years ago and lecture for Logopoesis?
Mark, you seem unduly incensed by the hypocrisy of the term, ‘vanity publishing,’ while making it absolutely clear that you didn’t have to sink that low to get your work published. Elitist? Aye-yi-yi! Many of us claim similarly: no vanity publishing, no paid contest fees, no work chosen because of who we knew in the biz, no AWP schmoozing, etc. Publishing is a business, and yes, there are pragmatic matters to be considered. It’s also worth considering that poetry is a several thousand-year-old tradition and so it has intrinsic value beyond what it costs to publish. Yet poets (flesh and blood souls after all), are often the poorest of the lot, who earn their meager ducats in lots of other ways, and who produce poetry under less than optimum circumstances. Presses too, or so I’d imagine, could (and should) find better ways to earn their bread and butter than by siphoning from the few poets that they publish, eh?
the only scary bit is the FIST YEAR STUDENT
X
[...] wrote a blog post entitled “The Half-Hearted Acceptance Letter” revealing Gatza’s request. Poets reacted with outrage. Some comments: As for the state [...]
Brett, I’ll give you a cash advance to pub your book. that’s how we do it in the real world. good work.
I thought I *WAS* living in the real world, Mr. or Ms. rafner696969. Does this sudden revelation mean that I can stop paying my mortgage?
And by the way, do you find it awkward to introduce yourself at parties, with such a name?
Hi Everyone, I’ve heard from a number of poets and would like to continue receiving copies of correspondence from BlazeVOX. Please email them to foetry@foetry.com I am trying to get a sense of how many of these kinds of offers went out.
By the way, I have copies of acceptance/request for donation letters so far from 2009, 2010, and 2011. In all of them, Gatza alludes to losing a major funder or donor. Seems odd that he lost one donor in each of those years.
See link:
http://www.blazevox.org/index.php/blog/to-the-blazevox-community-35/
According to S.M. Hutton’s link above:
“BlazeVOX is not closing its doors.”
Geoffrey Gatza goes on, as follows: “That said, I feel like I should explain a bit further the co-operative nature of our business model. I am not going to change what we do, but I do acknowledge that perhaps I could communicate what we do a little better.”
Brett’s open letter is so full of logical fallacies that I hardly know where to begin: false comparison, either/or, loaded words, generalization, ad hominem, wild speculation. But I will because his statements should not go unchallenged.
Most egregiously, Brett’s righteous indignation is disproportionate to his issues with BlazeVOX’s practices as revealed by the quoted correspondence. He seems intent on waging a smear campaign against Geoffrey and his press, and he does so with gross unfairness.
First, based on Geoffrey’s emailed explanations and on BlazeVOX’s own publishing track record, it is clear that this press bears no resemblance to what is usually thought of as a vanity press. Brett, in the tradition of effective argumentation, makes a concession regarding BlazeVOX’s “reputation as a press”:
“To be sure, BlazeVOX’s editor, Geoffrey Gatza, publishes some fine poetry, including work by Tom Holmes and Stacia Fleegal, both writers whom I admire. The books are absolutely beautiful. It’s quite clear he knows what he’s doing. And I really wanted my book to be issued by BlazeVOX.”
Although Brett praises BlazeVOX, he then does an about-face and taints the press with broad brush-strokes as a “confidence scam.” And invoking the image of a “far-flung princess ready to wire me millions of Euros” is a particularly nasty move on Brett’s part. It might be laughable if not for the serious damage that it does in smearing Geoffrey and BlazeVOX with a false comparison.
Also, Brett falsely claims that Geoffrey’s responses fail adequately to address his questions about the author-contribution policy. After receiving Geoffrey’s initial letter of acceptance, Brett very reasonably asked three questions about Geoffrey’s methodology. But after receiving a response, Brett then claims that Geoffrey “didn’t directly address all of my questions.”
Reading carefully the response, I find that Geoffrey actually did answer all of them, even if he didn’t number his responses to correspond precisely to Brett’s numbered questions. Let’s look at each one:
Brett: (1) Am I correct in assuming that not every book you publish is subject to this policy? If so, can you tell me what percentage of authors are asked to donate?
Geoffrey: “Of the 423 manuscripts I received I choose 30 books to publish from this lot.” “I did send this letter to a 30 folk with the hopes of getting 15 people.”
Geoffrey plainly responds that every book that he offered to publish is subject to his policy. He chose 30 books to accept, and he sent a similar letter regarding author donations to all 30 of them.
Brett: “(2) Also, if you don’t mind, how many such offers have you made?”
See the response to (1). Geoffrey has clearly stated that he has made 30 such offers.
Brett: (3) In addition, is this offer open to everyone who finds the link on your site, or is publication contingent upon your acceptance of the manuscript beforehand?
Geoffrey makes clear that the thirty books were selected based on their quality: “There was a real system in choosing these texts.”
To justify his claim that Geoffrey didn’t address his questions, Brett (in rather garbled syntax) states the following:
“While he let me know how many folks he’d asked for donations (30), confirmed my suspicions that I’d received a form letter, and implied that not all of the authors had to pay for their work, he’d also never answered the big question—whether my work would be rejected if I opted not to donate.”
I see three problems with Brett’s statement (assuming I’ve unraveled it correctly),
First, so what if Geoffrey cut-and-pasted? Keep in mind that he’s probably responding to several authors about the same issue. Should Geoffrey be expected to write unique wording throughout each of the responses that he may have had to make to several such inquiries about BlazeVOX’s new policy?
Second, Brett seems to think that Geoffrey implies a tiered system for the accepted authors. However, Geoffrey clearly states that all 30 accepted authors were asked to contribute to the cost of publication.
Third, Brett never asked the “big question” of whether publication was contingent upon a contribution from the author. Therefore, why should he have expected Geoffrey to respond to a question he didn’t pose?
Another problem with Brett’s open letter is that he does some creative math to bolster his wild speculation that Geoffrey was simply trying to scam some poets into give him money to buy a new computer:
“While I pondered this strange situation, I did the math. He sent his letter to 30 writers, hoping to land 15 donations. If he did so, that’d produce $3,750 in donations. Now this may be a coincidence, but I noticed that his donations page is talking up his press’s need for a new computer, one that runs about $1,300. If one does the math and assumes 75 percent of folks will turn him down, which seems more realistic, those 7 or so acceptances will take care of it.”
If Brett’s main complaint is that Geoffrey did not state his policy of author contributions on the BlazeVOX website, why does he resort to an invented scenario to tar Geoffrey with such a scurrilous accusation?
I will make one major concession to Brett: he does have a point that it would have been better for Geoffrey to have included information on his website about the donation in the submission information. And Brett states that he asked Geoffrey to do so. However, he does not state how long he waited between making this request and publishing his expose of what he sees as Geoffrey’s fraudulent practices. Here’s the timeline:
September 1: A succession of emails are exchanged between Geoffrey and Brett.
Unknown date: Brett asks Geoffrey “to at least include a mention of this policy on your website, including the donation amounts and point out that not all acceptances are subject to ‘donations,’ outlining pertinent statistics.”
Unknown date: Geoffrey’s last email to Brett, beginning with the sentence “Your work is very good and I choose it not because you are on some tier but because it is good.”
September 3: Brett publishes his open letter
Brett states that he has made “calls” and “requests”—plural—to Geoffrey to publish BlazeVOX policies online. How many did he make? What was Geoffrey’s response to the second request? Brett doesn’t say, which is a serious omission. What is clear is that Brett has not given Geoffrey the courtesy of waiting a reasonable amount of time before he jumps to the gun to publish his open letter attacking Geoffrey and his press. I picture him firing off multiple emails to Geoffrey and then going to the BlazeVox website every three minutes to see whether Geoffrey has added the pertinent information to the submission guidelines yet. Then his wounded sense of injustice gets the better of him and he fires off a poorly-reasoned and ill-considered open letter that comes across as a mean-spirited expose.
I find it curious that Brett feels the need to mention, at the beginning of his open letter, that he earned an MFA from Eastern Washington in 2007. What does his degree have to do with anything? Is Brett flying the flag of his MFA as a kind of credential to try to give his arguments greater authority?
Brett’s revelation at the opening of his letter that he’s been working hard on his manuscript since his degree (four years, give or take), suggests that his complaint is based more on sour grapes than a well-reasoned and level-headed inquiry into his experience with BlazeVOX: Brett has worked hard on his manuscript, and BlazeVOX’s letter of acceptance (perhaps the first such acceptance Brett has received?), which includes the apologetic request for author support, is the last straw, and Brett proceeds to dump his frustration on a struggling little press that has done much good for poetry over the years. Geoffrey’s emails transform Brett’s initial feeling of “elation” to “discontent.” I can understand “discontent.” But then he plummets into “near despair.” A diagnosis of serious illness might provoke such strong emotions. But a well-meaning if flawed attempt of a small press to stay afloat? This is simply an exaggerated appeal to emotion. I have no pity for Brett’s “near despair” because it rings false.
And finally, it irks me that Brett complains that Geoffrey’s email is “full of typos” when it is painfully evident that Brett didn’t proofread his own writing carefully enough before publishing it and rushing to judge Geoffrey’s carelessness. Brett’s open letter contains the following grammatical errors: spelling, mixed construction, comma, run-on sentence. Brett should clean up his own grammatical house before casting aspersions, lest his attack come off as hypocritical.
Brett’s misguided arguments and sometimes sarcastic tone makes me suspect that the open letter was fueled more by Brett’s own frustration with the publication process (the agonizing waiting, the rejections, etc.) than by a truly egregious situation calling for a heroic whistle-blower.
Unfortunately, Brett has stirred up so much negative publicity that damage has already been done. His blatant appeal to the reader’s emotions has resulted in a cascade of followers equally quick to rush to judgment without carefully considering the facts and the context. Some will simply jump on Brett’s bandwagon, conditioned to believe negative hype without applying critical judgment. What a shame that hotheads like Brett can do so much harm.
My own conclusions are as follows. Geoffrey’s press seems to be undergoing a painful transition in which economic options must be weighed and solutions carefully thought out. It seems evident that this process has not yet been thought through as carefully as it could have been. Deciding whether or not to continue publishing has no doubt been a very difficult and painful one for Geoffrey, who has poured much energy, generosity, and love of poetry into his work. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is surely not the only solution. Instead, creative and constructive assistance is in order here.
I urge readers to weigh carefully the arguments and apply critical thinking with a dose of human compassion and understanding.
[...] will remain open and will be more transparent about its business model. The announcement follows recent criticism of the BlazeVOX’s editorial processes, which have involved Gatza asking poets to help fund [...]
BlazeVOX’s lack of transparency is disappointing. The donation request should have been clearly stated in the submission guidelines. Gatza made an error in judgement, but the complete damnation of the press, which has produced some fine books over the years, is outrageous. Gatza has been called an illiterate, a scam artist and far worse in the comments on this blog and at HTML giant. Meanwhile, the icons of American poetry who have given awards to their friends, students and husbands are still on their pedestals, along with the complicity presses. In many ways, the BlazeVOX controversy says more about the “poety community” than it does about the press. It reveals deep insecurities, self-importance and fragile egos on the part of poets trying to “make it” in a niche part of literature.
I’m glad BlazeVOX has decided to stay in business, despite many of its supporters – and even a few poets published by the press – running in the other direction for fear it might damage their “reputations.” Getting a book published by a press isn’t easy. Many beloved indie presses now require a reading fee (Four Way Books is one) and poets spend hundreds or thousands of dollars in contest fees without batting an eye. Once a book is published, poets must purchase copies of their own books beyond the agreed upon number of author copies and the majority of marketing/touring will be coming out of the poet’s own pocket. There is no free ride in publication and those who tell you otherwise are liars.
I hope BlazeVOX continues its tradition of publishing quirky and “weird” collections, but does so by being upfront about its policies. The press has worth and so do all the fine poets it has published in the past.
This is very unsettling. I feel the argument is centered around the gray zone between vanity publishers and co-op publishers. If you self-publish that’s OK but if you pay to have someone else publish you it’s vanity. Vanity publishing to me is when a publisher’s main purpose is making money from authors who pay the publisher. I really do not think that’s what BlazeVox is up to. I can’t see how Geoffrey’s critics here think he’s making a ton of money from the co-op writers. Try and publish a book with ISBN and Library of Congress numbers, get it set up on Amazon and SPD, and on your own website for under $250.00.
I feel these folks are really hurting the art of poetry with this sort of talk. Poetry as an art form is already in dire straits without attacking publishers like Geoffrey who publish works that are definitely on the lunatic fringe of the art form. Coming from me maybe this isn’t as cogent an argument as it could be considering I’ve been published by him. But at the same time, when I think about it, changes in the literary climate will not come about unless publishers like him can do what they do. Drastic times, drastic measures. This is where our art is at. Good job folks for jabbing one of the few publishers who are really trying to change things. Go take a look at Random House’s catalog bet they’re publishing all sorts of new innovative poets.
[...] I don’t love you guys, I do. But if we are all of the belief that poetry does not sell and some of you are of the belief that $250 is not too much to give someone to publish something that–no matter what promotional efforts [...]
Remember, Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. Lautreamont, was published but never distributed, discovered fifty years later. Cesar Vallejo’s Trilce met with universal silence. Today it is considered one the most important works of Latin American Modernism. Something has a better chance of being saved for poterity if it makes it into print. What we’re talking about here is inspiring people now and for the future forget the frickin’ means.
Brett – get your pointy head out of your butt . . .
At some point a productive discussion might focus on a variety of models for funding small presses. But this doesn’t seem to be that time.
Roxane Gay posted a strong essay at HTML Giant about some of the economic realities surrounding the small press. She writes that “We have learned that BlazeVox is an interesting press that cannot afford to publish books without financial support from writers. That, in and of itself, is not the problem and it is a shame that for this publisher, it has come to this.”
She writes: “In publishing, both parties bring something to the table. The writer brings their work and the publisher offers the means to produce and distribute that work. In the best of all words, the publisher can afford to do so and compensate the writer. In return, the publisher earns a profit too. We are not living in that best of all worlds, not anymore. In this world, even when a writer secures a publisher, the writer has to hustle, network, blog, cartwheel, tour on their own dime with little or no advance, to hopefully sell a few copies of their book they might never see royalties from, to an over saturated, limited audience that is being asked to support a thousand other writers at the same time.”
Read the whole post here: http://htmlgiant.com/presses/a-kingdom-of-kings/#more-72845
Thanks for the link. I was wondering when Roxane would jump in on this, and I’m glad she did.
And yeah, to your above comment: productive discussion this is not. Maybe once tempers cool down. But on the bright side, I’m teaching my students how to blog tomorrow, and I’ve learned a lot from reading this.
[...] Initial post by prospective author: http://thebarking.com/2011/09/the-half-hearted-acceptance-letter/ [...]
Great list/timeline: http://josephpatrickwood.com/2011/09/05/when-cooler-heads/
I had a book published by BV in 2006 & wasn’t asked for any funds to help offset the cost. In fact, unlike every other press I’ve worked with, as both an author & publisher, I was able to purchase copies of the book at cost, which ran to just under two dollars a book. Of course, this was wonderful, in that I normally buy 100 or so copies when I have a new book out, and this can run to upwards of $800, but with BV I only had to pay $200. When BV made the switch to Amazon’s POD wing–which Amy K. mentions on the thread at HTML G.–& encountered unforeseen, unexpected expenses, expenses that were made public in a campaign for donations, I happily sent in $100, but also took the time to suggest that perhaps charging authors the standard 40-60% discount, rather than simply, essentially giving the books away, would generate the requisite funds to keep things afloat.
That said, as Janaka S. says in the thread on HTML G., there are numerous contractual issues involved with the production of a book that are not discussed beforehand, so the claim that BV was acting unethically is to my mind a pretty vacuous one. Keeping a small press afloat is difficult, time-consuming, and ultimately a labor of love. With the press I co-run (Letter Machine Editions), I’ve found myself thus far putting in about $5,000 or more a year (we do only about two books a year, but commit to an actual, high quality design & print run—no POD), a burden that I can only handle by opening a new credit card yearly & shuffling around those limited no-APR deals. But that’s okay with me, since I feel strongly about poetry as a participatory, pluralistic field in which one should do what one can for others. If you’re not into some specific model of how that might look, build something different–there’s room.
The truth is that JMW & I started this press after the two of us were sitting around and more or less talking shit about some other publishers out there, but instead of posting our opinions anonymously online, we decided to start our own press, to allow the press itself to stand as a polemic, an argument, as a tactile representation of what we value in literature. For me, this is the ethical thing to do. Rather than bemoan the financial practice (or lack of editorial prowess) of another press, one that you (the royal one) yourself have submitted your own work to, do something that actually and actively creates the world you’d envision: make the community you’d like to be a part of, make space for others.
Xoxo,
NEG
[...] story involving independent poetry publisher BlazeVox has been unfolding since Saturday over at the Bark Blog. It seems the press lost a major donor this year and is now asking poets who have had their [...]
read the post and cruising the comments so forgive if the ground’s already covered…over coffee…it’s true that not all bv authors pay an up-front fee — that the press funds itself by recouping its heavy operating costs in VARIOUS ways. it’s not true that gatza doesn’t edit books (in fact i think g’s one of the best and fastest editors i’ve met, having worked for seven presses, some “major” eh-hem)(geoffrey is sensitive to the potential in a well-placed typo, wink wink). most likely each manuscript and ultimately each book gets different treatment at bv based on the needs of the press viz. the perceived potential in a book and author, which should come as no surprise, because that’s how every realistically minded press must work. part of the issue here is disappointment about not knowing about the possibility of a fee up front. but good grief, if we could only drag all the goods out into the open on every damned press out there…the social fabric would unravel, shiny careers would be tarnished…and thus we see why no press at all operates with total transparency: because things like status reputation street cred pretense matter so dang much. in my experience as a publisher, the most sensitive dolls are new authors, meaning those with few publications; with age and experience (publication) there very evidently comes a greater degree of ease and laughter and willingness in terms of the editor’s desire to use the work to make something innovative that will best serve its community of writers and readers, while maintaining its own artistic integrity. gatza is doing us all an irreplaceable service. the bottom line sic is that the o so sensitive lands of poetry and fiction dandies would suck that much more without Blazevox — as if the civilized cultured oracular author should never have to schlep his or her own work, not like blake or whitman — but with blazevox they’re a bit less irritating. the fact is no one or thing is even close to doing what geoffrey gatza and blazevox are doing–that is, they’ve changed and they continue to change the literary turf. they’re doing their best and the cooperative model is at least as defensible ethically as any other model. for example, i don’t see anyone accusing geoffrey or blazevox of nepotism, which would seem far worse and certainly more common that this little trifle being discussed here. i’m calling bullshit blinded by the light on naysayers.
Could any of Geoffrey Gatza’s supporters please answer the core question: “Why isn’t this subsidization mentioned up front in the submission guidelines so that authors would know the cost before sending in their work?”
I, too, am left wondering about this central issue. All the name-calling and silliness has been mildly entertaining but has done nothing to address the actual issues brought up in the initial post and the follow-up comments.
because it’s an inane detail any mope can exploit in order to distract the audience from the bigger picture.
This entire situation boils down to ethics: either VOX editor Geoffrey Gatza is ethical in his disclosure of fees or he is unethical in his non-disclosures. And so too, the acceptance or rejection of these terms reflects the ethics of the submitting author. However, Gatza’s lack of disclosure is the whole point here — not his dancing around and downplaying this ethical issue by invoking the poor economy, as if that abstruse nonentity were to blame for his decision to be unforthcoming with perspective authors.
Apparently, Brett has won, as Gatza is now closing down “the press”, but not until the end of this year. See [http://bit.ly/o3mNKR]. Sadly, perhaps there are still a few people out there to milk.
[...] Geoffrey Gatza Did A Bad Thing. [...]
First of all, I would like to thank Camille Martin in particular but also Matvei Yankelevich for taking the time to formulate very thoughtful responses. I agree with Matvei that what Brett did in publishing emails without the author’s permission is at LEAST as unethical (and, I would say, more so) than anything Geoffrey did. Geoffrey has admitted he should have communicated more clearly (I agree), and has publicly clarified the policy on BV’s Web site. Isn’t this all that Brett wanted?
@Marcus: I can’t see that Brett was done any harm by submitting to BV, especially since, I would guess, the MS was possibly also circulating among other publishers. While it certainly is Brett’s right not to accept “the deal”— and I respect that— this experience does NOT justify publicly dragging Geoffrey’s name through the mud. And suggesting that BV is a vanity press, among the other insinuations that Brett makes, is doing just that. That, it seems to me, is what’s really unethical here.
I’d like to say more about my suggestion of elitism, which both Marcus and Tana commented on. I find it simply amazing that, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, some people do not recognize that poetry publishers (a fragile economic niche even in the best of times) might not need to resort to a cooperative model to sustain their support especially of newer &/or “weird” authors. While I agree with Marcus that it absolutely would have been best if all of this had been said upfront, I can’t see that it is anything more than a dumb but honest mistake on GG’s part. I also find the suggestions that Geoffrey should have been a better businessman, or whatever, rather weird. Have you LOOKED at BV’s catalog? Do you realize how productive this press is? Name me any three presses, put together, that have published this many poetry & fiction titles in such a short amount of time. What Geoffrey has done is amazing, and I suspect that some of those hemming and hawing do not sufficiently understand what this press has achieved. But, in any case, if you want a publisher who is good at business you should submit your work to Penguin or someplace like that, rather than to a press that operates on a shoestring, however prolifically.
Also— again to the point of elitism— there seems to be the presumption that publishers are there to “serve” poets. Tana mentioned that poets are often low on the economic rung themselves; while this is often true, it is not always the case, and even those (like me) who live with fewer means have chosen to do so in order to accommodate a life or career devoted to poetry. This blatantly ignores the fact that publishers like Geoffrey are poets themselves and are providing a service to the poetry community— a service which apparently is not always as appreciated at it ought to be. See, in particular, Jared’s post, which hits the nail on the head.
@Tana, I was merely trying to point out, as Noah and others later did, that Geoffrey does not or at least has not always required money up front. But if you want to read whatever you want to read into it, then go right ahead.
Finally, I object to the assertion that I am one of the “negative” commenters. Brett chose to publicly drag Geoffrey’s name through the mud, a choice he did not have to make (see especially Camille’s post). We are coming to GG’s defense and, so far as I am concerned, are the POSITIVE commenters in this case.
Love to all,
Mark
First, thank you for writing a thoughtful and intelligent response. Such notes have been a bit lacking on both sides here.
You and I, I think, are fairly close to agreement on most of this. That it was a “dumb but honest mistake” for sure. Presumably honest. I don’t know Geoffrey any better than I know Brett, so I can’t really give any insight into his motives. His actions (from what I’ve seen) illustrate something very dumb, indeed. That sounds insulting to him, yes. But it’s hard to come to any other conclusion. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest he’s a sly bastard; in fact, the way he’s responded on his website indicates quite the opposite, that he cares very much and wants to do better, and I am very encouraged by that outcome.
But I do have differences with what you call a service to the poetry community, and it’s tied in with the financial issues. That is, sure, he’s published a whole lot of books. But what kind of service is it if he’s publishing so many books that none of them get any financial backing or promotions? Prolific, damned sure, and as an editor I’m impressed by his output, but if his goal is to publish as many books as possible, don’t we have to wonder just how much effort he can really put into getting those books into the hands of readers? And, on the balance, is a lot of books read by a few people actually any better than half as many books read by twice as many people?
I don’t doubt that he has the best of intentions toward poetry, and the couple of BV books I’ve read were indeed quite good. But what good does it do to great literature to just keep pumping out more and more until it all sort of drowns? Especially when it takes the author’s backing to make it happen?
I’m not arguing against the co-op model; in fact I think it can be quite effective. What I’m saying is that I might disagree on just how much of an achievement it is to publish more books than any three publishers, whether that’s actually a Good Thing.
And I think Brett was done harm, though not a lot. It’s been blown out of proportion by some; he was done harm by submitting to something that appeared to be one thing but turned out to be another, though not in all cases to all people. That seems unfair to me, doesn’t it to you? Is it tantamount to a death blow? Of course not, but it’s a real annoyance and a waste of time that would be easily avoided (and that is the key).
“Geoffrey has admitted he should have communicated more clearly (I agree), and has publicly clarified the policy on BV’s Web site. Isn’t this all that Brett wanted?” Right, and when that happened, Brett was among the first to notice and be happy about it.
Further, I’m not convinced that he dragged BV’s name through the mud, because I don’t know his intentions any more than I know Mr. Gatza’s. And I think mud-dragging requires a certain amount of intentional hostility, when what struck me was that Brett wanted people to know about this practice, to be informed. The comparison to vanity press, well, that seems a natural extension from the pay-to-publish model he was offered. A long extension? Maybe. But not without backing.
I’m not sure if you’re addressing me directly when you say, “I find it simply amazing that, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, some people do not recognize that poetry publishers … might not need to resort to a cooperative model to sustain their support especially of newer &/or “weird” authors.” Because I do recognize that. I think most of us do. (Let’s not forget that Brett edits a journal of poetry.) That simply isn’t the issue here. The issue is the timing & method & inability/unwillingness to explain. Right?
As a bit of an aside: It’s depressing to me that people are so willing to throw in the towel on finances. Being a small publisher does not necessarily equate to being crappy at business. They are not mutually exclusive, any more than being a big company and being excellent at business are natural companions. And writing poetry is yeah, not a super smart way to try and make money, that’s hard to argue with. But isn’t that all the more reason to be more selective and use more carefully what resources do exist, rather than intentionally stretching oneself too thin?
A long enough and probably winding response, sorry.
i stop reading when i hear you frame the project as “publishing as many books as possible.” you clearly don’t get it (and yes i did read the rest). fact is, blazevox will be discussed long after most of its peers and lessers have been forgotten. however, you are right on the money sic in suggesting brett chortle or whatever his name is hasn’t done much harm; i suspect this all will prove great press.
What is it I don’t get?
The project was framed by others as being impressive specifically because it published lots and lots of books. In the case of the comment I was replying to, more than any three other presses.
If you’re in disagreement with my point that publishing so many books makes it difficult to spend a lot of time on any single one of them, cool, let’s talk about that.
Marcus, for a suggestion, perhaps start with my second-to-last paragraph in the post below.
Peace.
I actually don’t understand what you meant in that part of the conversation, so I just dropped it.
Marcus, on some of this I would say we can just agree to disagree. And I am glad that we have at least a little bit of common ground. However, there are a few points you make I still must take issue with.
Let’s start with this:
“I’m not convinced that he dragged BV’s name through the mud, because I don’t know his intentions any more than I know Mr. Gatza’s. And I think mud-dragging requires a certain amount of intentional hostility, when what struck me was that Brett wanted people to know about this practice, to be informed. The comparison to vanity press, well, that seems a natural extension from the pay-to-publish model he was offered. A long extension? Maybe. But not without backing.”
Calling BV a vanity press is nothing more or less than dragging its name, and Geoffrey’s, through the mud. A vanity press is one that offers publication with no consideration to the quality of work, but based solely on financial motives (i.e., the author’s willingness to pay, usually with some profit to the publisher). It is absolutely clear from the quoted correspondence that Geoffrey’s offer was based on the quality of the work alone, even if he did ask for a donation that covered only a tiny amount of his costs. I don’t at all see your assertion that damaging someone’s reputation must be based on ‘intention’ or ‘hostility’? How so? It doesn’t matter a fig to me what Brett’s intent was, and in any case I’ll presume him to be somewhat reasonable when he’s not writing posts such as this one. What DOES matter to me is that he DID do it, and he had no cause or reason to. It is certainly possible to publish a blog post or article on the issue of publisher transparency and, without naming names, describe the situation he encountered with BlazeVOX. THAT would have been an appropriate way to open a dialogue on a forum such as this— and had Brett done so, I would have had no objections whatsoever. It might also have been appropriate to name names if (and this is a big ‘if’) GG had been rude or intransigent or completely blown him off. But, as Camille Martin establishes in her very well argued post, not only did Geoffrey answer ALL of Brett’s questions, but Brett DID NOT ALLOW GEOFFREY A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME before exercising what I would consider the nuclear option— that is, smearing Geoffrey’s good name.
Marcus, one more thing. You have repeated twice that I know of— and now been corrected both times— Brett’s incorrect assertion that Geoffrey did not respond to his questions. If you want to say anything more about this publicly, I would urge you to first read Camille’s long post, if you haven’t already, and respond to it directly. There is no point in muddying the very logical argument she lays out by having potentially several other posters chime in, in repetition of Brett’s unfounded claim.
Beyond that, your point about BV’s prolificness seems to me to still buy in to this ideology of the press “selecting” only the “cream of the crop” (as if there were only one crop!). That is also a problem with Brett’s post. If you really think like that, there is no use in our discussing, because we’re never going to remotely agree or persuade the other. And on this very point, I want to give a shout out to Tracy Thomas, who nailed it.
By the way, just so you know, I was not specifically addressing you in the passage you quote that mentions the Great Depression.
All Best,
Mark
I’ve got to get dinner and whatnot, and I suspect I won’t be able to follow this discussion much longer, but I do want to point out something that throws me out of your argument. You say, “It is absolutely clear from the quoted correspondence that Geoffrey’s offer was based on the quality of the work alone.”
But that isn’t true. It is clear that Geoffrey’s offer was partially based on the quality of the work. Depending on which of his letters you read, he had any number of submissions, and selected 30. Okay, that’s based on the quality of the work. But to get from that point to the point of publishing required a monetary donation. So the fact is once he’d narrowed the field, he didn’t care about quality anymore. He found a bunch that were good enough, and whoever was willing to pay would get published, regardless of whether they were the best of that lot. So, feasibly, the 25-30th best of those could have been published instead of the 1st-5th best, and the only reason being they contributed money.
So, the essence of the vanity publishing establishment is there, just on a smaller scale. I guess you could argue that any of those 30 would be worth publishing, and maybe you’d be right. But that does not negate the fact that once a percentage of the field was cut out, quality no longer mattered.
On the topic of Camille’s post, well, I probably won’t bother responding to what I see as flaws in her logic, for two reasons: first, there’s no way I can keep up with all the various conversations I’ve got myself into, and second, because it would be fruitless to do so, as it’s pretty plain that it’s not possible to sway her, so I’d just be barking into the abyss. But, because I can’t help it, just as an example, look at how she examines the three questions Brett asked, and Gatza’s answers.
Brett asks: “Am I correct in assuming that not every book you publish is subject to this policy? If so, can you tell me what percentage of authors are asked to donate?”
And GG says, “Of the 423 manuscripts I received I choose 30 books to publish from this lot.” “I did send this letter to a 30 folk with the hopes of getting 15 people.”
Camille thinks this answers Brett’s question, but it doesn’t. We do not know if every book BV publishes is subject to this policy. Are those 30 books the only ones he’s considering publishing, or did he choose a few without the offer (as anecdotal evidence in this and other comment streams have suggested), and pick 30 others to make the offer to? This is unclear. And what if only two authors agreed? Would he only publish two books this year? It seems unlikely that he would actually depend on this offer to generate all of the publications. Did all of last year’s publications agree to the deal, or only some? We simply do not know how many of BV’s books were the result of agreement with this policy, which is what Brett asked. Camille says GG “plainly responds that every book that he offered to publish is subject to his policy,” but that’s untrue; what GG said was that he picked thirty books. We don’t know if that’s all the ones he offered to publish or not. And because we don’t know that, we don’t know what percentage of authors were asked to donate. We know what percentage GG wants (50%), but we don’t know anything beyond that without making assumptions. So, no, it really doesn’t answer Brett’s question, just conveniently sidesteps it. Intentionally? I don’t know. But it’s certainly less than clear.
I could write up arguments against most of the rest of her “logic,” but I admit I’m tired and don’t care enough anymore because I don’t think anyone would actually listen. So instead I’m going to make dinner for my wife and probably do some writing. So, peace out, y’all.
Marcus,
If you don’t understand what I wrote in that paragraph, then it would be helpful to me if you gave me a clue as to what, specifically, you don’t understand. Otherwise, I thought I had made it at least fairly clear. However, the fact that it seems opaque to you only supports my point that we seem to be coming from very different places regarding canonicity and the role of poets and publishers in the community at large. To provide a sort of crude example of the distinction I’m talking about, you seem to be more T.S. Eliot, “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” whereas I am more Daniel Kane, All Poets Welcome. Not that I am implying that you have not read, or do not appreciate, Kane’s book, any more than I would say that I completely lack appreciation for Eliot. Again, I present this as a crude, and possibly flawed, shorthand for our disagreement.
As for Camille Martin, your argument against her, above, strikes me as almost incoherent, and does not change my opinion as to the persuasiveness of her post. She identifies specific logical fallacies in Brett’s argument, and provides evidence for at least some of them. (One could find evidence, I think, for those she does not demonstrate.) That is far more than anyone else on this thread has done, including me. She also gives a more careful reading to Brett’s post than Brett, apparently, did to the emails from Geoffrey. Disagree with her if you must, but don’t dismiss her, as I think you’re trying to do.
But you’re not the only one, Marcus. There haven’t been any comments yet on Camille’s post, although she makes the most thoughtful and persuasive comments of anyone, including myself. (And no, I”m not excessively modest; just honest.)
I’m not trying to put you on the spot— not at all. However, I find that Camille’s post is extremely well argued, and I think it would have been reponded to, and given due credit, if… how shall I say this, politely… a man had posted it.
I am absolutely not accusing you of anything, and any such accusation, I’m sure, would be totally unjustified. What I AM doing is strongly encouraging you to talk to her directly, if you find fault with what she said. I too have dinner & life to get to; and I hardly want to be the middle man in a conversation which, I suspect, could be better carried out with the primary parties involved.
Love & Peace,
Mark
it’s like a barney rosset obscenity trial
[...] site: The Half-Hearted Acceptance Letter | Bark: A Blog of Literature … Tagged as: been-shaping, ever-since, good-news, graduated-from, manuscript, other-day, poetry, [...]
[...] How about here, where you’ll get a synopsis and a link to the exchange that started it all (this one). There are, at this point, gobs of opinions out there on blogs like Slope, Coldfront, Versal, and [...]
[...] the days since The Bark broke the story, small presses have come forward to talk about their own business models, to tease out definitions [...]
[...] “The other day I got some good news, or so I thought. My poetry manuscript, which I’ve been shaping ever since I graduated from Eastern Washington’s MFA program in 2007, was accepted by BlazeVOX Books. Nevertheless, as I delved into the long letter, it became apparent that the publication offer was contingent on a monetary donation ($250, to be exact). This took me by complete surprise; over the course of the next day and a half (and a handful of emails), my initial elation turned to discontent, and then to near despair. “- From http://thebarking.com/2011/09/the-half-hearted-acceptance-letter/ [...]
[...] of publishing, then fine. That is one’s prerogative. But if such is the case, one should not cloak one’s intentions in the latter paragraphs of an acceptance letter, or fail to keep one’s numbers completely [...]
Brett, I’m with you 100% on this one. We did have a discussion about the overall situation, and while I wasn’t privy to the complete details until it culminated in this very fair and thoughtful blog, I am very relieved to learn that, as we talked about, enough red flags were raised for you to decide against publication with BlazeVOX.
This all speaks to the larger issue of integrity in the publishing world, especially as regards vanity presses, literary presses at large, and the role of the writer in the publication process. As a poet, particularly, I’m livid at the assertion that Gatza’s implication that his brand of opaque, spurious work is the way to “keep poetry alive”. As you outlined in this blog, transparency is the prime concern here, and Gatza seems to have none of it. The sheer weight of the recorded emails you’ve posted points directly at a lack of integrity in him, as well as to attempts to continually hoodwink you into seeing the “fairness” and “rationale” behind his methods.
To those who’ve tried to defend Mr. Gatza on the ground of Brett’s being, simply, a disgruntled writer who’s pissed of that he’s not getting published, I say unto thee: shut it. Brett is not just some poet with a manuscript who’s angry at not getting recognition for said manuscript. He is also a literary journal’s editor and publisher, and well-versed in genuine, honest, and wholly exemplary conduct as such. He and Jeremy Halinen, through painstaking effort, have created Knockout and it is wildly successful; to discount Brett’s experience is to discount the experiences of ALL aspiring writers.
Without transparency and adherence to integrity in our business, let alone businesses of any nature in this day and age, how can we expect to stay credible, visible and continue to evolve? We’d all love it if poetry ‘paid’ right now-financially, anyway. Poetry, and any other literary endeavor, will languish if no one speaks up in the manner that Brett just has.
The sheer weight of the recorded emails… he answered them honestly and you picked him apart. How is that a lack of integrity? Is it really integrous to berate someone because they lost a backer and are asking for help? He isn’t hiding anything. He is just trying to survive. So will you cheer if he closes down?
[...] co-op submissions ‘scandal’ (for want of a better term). If you haven’t, start at The Bark, where poet Brett Ortler first made public his concerns, see Geoffrey Gatza’s response over at the BlazeVOX blog and the coverage at [...]
Scamdalaous.
Scamdalous.
[...] of their book. I don’t have the energy (and really see no need, since you can go right to the source) to explain the whole happenings, but the skinny of the thing is that BlazeVOX lost some funding, [...]
[...] select for publishing to contribute $250 to offset printing costs. It was first reported by author Brett Ortler and has been commented on by several bloggers, including Kelly Davio and Christopher [...]
[...] fact, after one blogger wrote about how betrayed he felt [http://thebarking.com/2011/09/the-half-hearted-acceptance-letter/], other readers posted and reposted his post. The one-time legitimate publishing company with an [...]
I’m sorry to hear this about Blazevox. Hopefully, it can pull itself out of this mire, and get back to producing top quality books, without the taint of vanity publishing lingering.
The reality is that the world of publishing has changed. Small presses are undermined by amazon and industry standards that provide no way to make money on book sales. So publishing models that pay up front either require deep pockets or a company big enough to publish 50 books hoping one will be a best seller and conver the costs of the others. This is the story of a small press close to shutting down and the publisher has devised a way to keep going. He’s not trying to scam anyone. He did NOT say some would be published free. He said out of 30 authors he carefully selected, he hoped that 15 would step up to help. He is saying he can’t work for free. So go find someone who can. Or, you could cooperate since he seems committed to helping poets get published. It’s $250 for $2000 worth of work, not a bad deal. That’s one electronic toy… or a book done by someone who really wants to publish you. You have heartlessly attacked someone who really only wishes you the best. What a sad affair.
[...] Geoffrey Gatza Did A Bad Thing. [...]
[...] my correspondence with him, I specifically asked him if my book would be published if I did not contribute. After I got [...]
Brett, way to blur the line between poetics and investigative journalism!