Rattle sees the light, but...

[bruise]

Rattle does not accept work that has been previously curated, in print or online—poems may be self-published on social media, blogs, or message boards, but cannot have been published in books, magazines, or similar collections open to the public. We want to be the first publisher to highlight the poems, but never want to discourage anyone from sharing their poems themselves.

Do you notice what's different? And, I promise, it's different to everyone else. Someone on Rattle wrote an article explaining this, but I am afraid I can't find it. If anyone else can, I'd be grateful if they could post it here.

Just about everyone else you may send a poem to will say that it can't have been published before, and that includes FB posts, blogs, fora (ahem) as well as any other online placing or print. Rattle are trying to establish a new standard, which is that the poem can have been shared in any other way, but not 'curated' into an online or print publication.

Of course this is a breath of fresh air, but, as far as I know, they are alone. Perhaps others know more?

There are two implications of this - one positive, good on Rattle, let's hope it catches on.

The other implication is for this forum. I am frustrated that a lot of long-term users avoid using the members' square and put poems in the general area. Are they aware that that disqualifies the poem from competitions or publication? Sure, you could chance it, but a quick search of a key line will find it instantly, when and editor checks before publication, which they likely will do if you are new to them.

Meanwhile, because people do that, there's a lot of tumble weed in the members' area. Perhaps this aspect of the site needs more thought?

[Tracy Mitchell]

Hi Bruise,
This is an excellent discussion to have.  Thank you so much for raising it again.  I am decidedly opinionated  on the subject.  The whole area is clearly in a state of flux and has been for some time.  But it is hard not to see the direction of the momentum.  

Historically, the traditional print poetry journals and publishing houses understandably insisted on presenting fresh material.  The long-settled definition of "publish" is "to present to the public".   Obviously anything presented to the public in print was considered "published even if it only appeared in a  Methodist women's group recipe column in a local newspaper with a circulation of 37.  It had been "presented to the public."  This never applied to a poem appearing in private correspondence.  Writers routinely sent text to each other for review and comment.  Certainly not "published".  There was the black line test, easy to apply, easy to reach solid conclusions.  That was then.

With the advent of the internet, journals and publishing houses reacted with caution and understandable naivete in declaring anything uploaded to the internet is deemed "published".  Although loud voices were quick to declare this the universal rule, I am unconvinced that was ever entirely so.  As the collective pool of experience with the internet grew, so did the understanding of the existence of some complexity and nuance.  First appeared the look-at-me self-promotion blogs, then the open to everyone vanity gallery sites.  But these were soon followed by the advent of online critique groups, which often, but not always were by invitation.  And there was the concomitant explosion of quality post-and- critique sites, of which TTB is a direct descendent.  These sites often have both public and private posting boards, as does TTB. 

I don't think anyone still considers as "published" those poems which have been posted to private boards for the purpose of workshopping them-- review and comment.  If so, they are few and far between and dying out.  I also think that numerous journals are backing off with respect to poems posted on "public boards" -- those accessible by search engines, if the purpose of the posting is for the workshopping of the poem.  There is a large difference between a workshop poem going through drafts online, and that poem deemed finished by the author and posted for the purpose of eliciting applause, etc.  

My view is that journals remain focused on presenting fresh new quality poetry to larger audience.  I think the impetus is toward the identifying and corralling such work, and not on ferreting out technical reasons to reject and disqualify otherwise worthy work.  The fact that a handful of people, or a couple dozen, or a couple hundred people saw a poem last year or three years ago does not diminish its quality and freshness to the larger audience.  

Moreover, with the proliferation of easy methods for self-publishing, the journals and publishing houses can no longer enforce their control of the market with such restrictive and abusive rules.  That was case when self-publishing meant giving thousands of dollars to a publishing house to generate your published book in some quantity.  But not any longer, when any writer has access, for little to no money invested, to have their manuscript published on a print-to-order basis.  

- - - - - - - - 

Now, as to TTB practices.  Bruise, I agree with you that the safest practice, if you want your poems to be best positioned for future publication by journals and commercial publishing houses, and to have them qualified and at the ready for submission to various poetry contests, is to post exclusively in Members Square .  But, fact of the matter is, a low number of TTB writers find those avenues particularly appealing.  Maybe some writers will hold back their bigger poems and not post them on the General Poetry board.  I don't know.  I also think that a poem which has been posted for review and comment - workshopped - in PYP and then taken down and re-worked should not be considered "published"  I don't view it as published and the policy arguments on myside are strong and persuasive, in my view.   

Never the less, I respect your view and if you noticed, I have changed my practice of where I post my poems -- now almost exclusively in Members Square-Workshop.  

These are my views.  

T