Lit mags besieged with AI submissions; a look at poetry book contests; alternative paths for writers & poets; lit mags in history; work opportunities; hundreds of markets for your work, and more...
Uh, what? 500 writers banned in one month at one little lit mag because of AI-generated submissions? Good Lord. The irony is astounding. If you’re that desperate to get into a mag no one has heard of, I can only imagine how desperate you are to get into The Paris Review. But even if you did, what would be the point? You got a story published that you didn’t write? How is that satisfying?
I guess it helps to understand why I have yet to banned from Taco Bell Quarterly. Terrified to submit. Yeatts is a good name. I enjoyed this post. Thanks!
I have to say, I was shocked to read a "poem of the week" (month? millennium?) in a recent edition of a pretty well-known mag. It was so horrible, so stilted that it could ONLY have been AI. I wasn't envious that it landed there as much as I was horrified. Showed it to my English major geniusy spouse who notices things like that and was confirmed in my belief about that piece o' literary Cheeto pollinating the lit mag glitterati. And now I see lit mags embracing this crud. It's demoralizing. Way worse than "erasure" poetry and whatever other assorted Lazy Susan of deplorable "poetry" is being rotated on the wheel these days. My other trade is lawyering. I think AI can find cases. I think AI can assist docs with surgery. But AI will never have any judgment. AI shouldn't be allowed to write for lit mags, because it is a contaminant of the drop of drop of pure, imperfect humanity that literature requires. Gimme the gross spores of human imprecision!
Thanks, as always, for the shoutout! A quick note for your readers: My newsletter (also hosted here on Substack) features opportunities that are not only fee-free; they're also PAYING. Please enjoy—and share!
Let's just say that every book I self publish and the cover letter of anything I send out will have the following statement: "No generative AI was used in the conceptualization, development, or drafting of this work."
Hi. Would you consider writing something about Chapbook submissions and contests? I am most interested in your thoughts on poetry chapbook submissions. Thank you.
Here's what I wrote in a fit of pique over the weekend...since generative AI is being sold at least in many cases as a tool for effective cheating:
"Corporations scrubbing the published volumes of writers to 'train' their generative AI in high-tech plagiarism? Sounds to me like another way for capital to profit from the labors of workers, without exchange for value received...."
Author's Guild has a new suggested contract term in which the publishing house agrees not to let your work be used by AI for data mining. Somehow it feels like the horse is already out of the barn and this will be a problem for a long, long time.
Uh, what? 500 writers banned in one month at one little lit mag because of AI-generated submissions? Good Lord. The irony is astounding. If you’re that desperate to get into a mag no one has heard of, I can only imagine how desperate you are to get into The Paris Review. But even if you did, what would be the point? You got a story published that you didn’t write? How is that satisfying?
Yes! Very interested to see this take on poetry book contests. A better world is possible.
I can't believe writers and publishers now have to worry about AI-generated writing. That is truly awful.
I guess it helps to understand why I have yet to banned from Taco Bell Quarterly. Terrified to submit. Yeatts is a good name. I enjoyed this post. Thanks!
I have to say, I was shocked to read a "poem of the week" (month? millennium?) in a recent edition of a pretty well-known mag. It was so horrible, so stilted that it could ONLY have been AI. I wasn't envious that it landed there as much as I was horrified. Showed it to my English major geniusy spouse who notices things like that and was confirmed in my belief about that piece o' literary Cheeto pollinating the lit mag glitterati. And now I see lit mags embracing this crud. It's demoralizing. Way worse than "erasure" poetry and whatever other assorted Lazy Susan of deplorable "poetry" is being rotated on the wheel these days. My other trade is lawyering. I think AI can find cases. I think AI can assist docs with surgery. But AI will never have any judgment. AI shouldn't be allowed to write for lit mags, because it is a contaminant of the drop of drop of pure, imperfect humanity that literature requires. Gimme the gross spores of human imprecision!
Thanks, as always, for the shoutout! A quick note for your readers: My newsletter (also hosted here on Substack) features opportunities that are not only fee-free; they're also PAYING. Please enjoy—and share!
Let's just say that every book I self publish and the cover letter of anything I send out will have the following statement: "No generative AI was used in the conceptualization, development, or drafting of this work."
Hi. Would you consider writing something about Chapbook submissions and contests? I am most interested in your thoughts on poetry chapbook submissions. Thank you.
Here's what I wrote in a fit of pique over the weekend...since generative AI is being sold at least in many cases as a tool for effective cheating:
"Corporations scrubbing the published volumes of writers to 'train' their generative AI in high-tech plagiarism? Sounds to me like another way for capital to profit from the labors of workers, without exchange for value received...."
Author's Guild has a new suggested contract term in which the publishing house agrees not to let your work be used by AI for data mining. Somehow it feels like the horse is already out of the barn and this will be a problem for a long, long time.