Hayley,IтАЩm curious as to why youтАЩre so dedicated to publishing the same poets over and over. In your rejection letter you stated that half of your space is dedicated to repeat contributors. I find that rather intimidating. ThatтАЩs not unusualтАФeven the New Yorker has repeat contributorsтАФbut coming from a smaller-circulation journal it kinda makes you seem like an exclusive clubтАФespecially with the seemingly strong bias to free verse ( I,too, am a formalist).
Hi. T. R. -- At Sheila-Na-Gig online, I'm especially proud of the sense of community we have created among our authors and readers. It's an honor when writers want to continue to be a part of your journal, and unlike many journals, I don't ask writers to wait to submit again. Since we began charging for submissions in Fall 2023, I feel we have made a better conscious effort to include writers new to the journal. Your post encouraged me to check out the stats on Winter Volume: 8.2 . Our guidelines note that we publish 30-45 poets per issue (sometimes the issues end up much bigger). In that issue, we received 151 submissions and published 41. Our Editor's Prize Winner and 11 other writers were new to us. 13 were past regular contributors, and 5 others appeared for the second time. Another 11 (more than usual) were Sheila-Na-Gig Editions authors. These are folks who have published books with us. They pay the same fee to submit, but I don't count them among the first 30 acceptances, to keep that space open to others in the broader writing community. Your post encouraged me to add that information to our submissions page. I never award the Editors Prize to authors whose books we've published, although some have won my prize before I published their books. Our upcoming Spring issue includes 56 poets (bigger than the norm) -- 22 of these are new to Sheila-Na-Gig. Back to the formalist question, we'll never reject a poem just because it is a form, and we're as happy to read well-crafted forms as we are to read well-crafted free verse, but our bias is toward free verse. It's just what we do.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I really value honest conversations with editors, and I like and admire different editorial styles. I do admire your journal, and so many of your poets. I really really enjoyed Dick WestheimerтАЩs book, which I believe you published.
I've published formal verse in Sheila-Na-Gig. The editor, Hayley Mitchell Haugen, is outstanding at choosing and publicizing work. And, she herself writes excellent formal verse. ( Ms. LoSchiavo, I urge you not to make the turn at the crosswalk. ЁЯШБ ) In addition, Sheila has created--by virtue of it's online readings and other activities--an interesting community of poets who submit regularly. While they write differently from each other--no house style--they maintain a connection and enjoy reading and hearing each other's work. (I should add that this happened organically. There were no camp counselors telling everybody to get in the water.) I'm not claiming Sheila is unique, but it is a great example of what a lit mag should be and can be.
This is a little off-topic, and I apologize, but I think it's odd and unwise for any lit mag to turn down poems based on their form rather than based on whether the poems work. Though, I can imagine that some magazines may be terrified of seeming "academic." Sigh.
Sheila-Na-Gig only prints free verse. Yeeeps. We formalists cross the street & avoid them.
Hi, LindaAnn
We're always happy to consider forms. I'm especially partial to pantoums and sestinas. We don't receive many forms in our submissions.
Hayley,IтАЩm curious as to why youтАЩre so dedicated to publishing the same poets over and over. In your rejection letter you stated that half of your space is dedicated to repeat contributors. I find that rather intimidating. ThatтАЩs not unusualтАФeven the New Yorker has repeat contributorsтАФbut coming from a smaller-circulation journal it kinda makes you seem like an exclusive clubтАФespecially with the seemingly strong bias to free verse ( I,too, am a formalist).
Hi. T. R. -- At Sheila-Na-Gig online, I'm especially proud of the sense of community we have created among our authors and readers. It's an honor when writers want to continue to be a part of your journal, and unlike many journals, I don't ask writers to wait to submit again. Since we began charging for submissions in Fall 2023, I feel we have made a better conscious effort to include writers new to the journal. Your post encouraged me to check out the stats on Winter Volume: 8.2 . Our guidelines note that we publish 30-45 poets per issue (sometimes the issues end up much bigger). In that issue, we received 151 submissions and published 41. Our Editor's Prize Winner and 11 other writers were new to us. 13 were past regular contributors, and 5 others appeared for the second time. Another 11 (more than usual) were Sheila-Na-Gig Editions authors. These are folks who have published books with us. They pay the same fee to submit, but I don't count them among the first 30 acceptances, to keep that space open to others in the broader writing community. Your post encouraged me to add that information to our submissions page. I never award the Editors Prize to authors whose books we've published, although some have won my prize before I published their books. Our upcoming Spring issue includes 56 poets (bigger than the norm) -- 22 of these are new to Sheila-Na-Gig. Back to the formalist question, we'll never reject a poem just because it is a form, and we're as happy to read well-crafted forms as we are to read well-crafted free verse, but our bias is toward free verse. It's just what we do.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I really value honest conversations with editors, and I like and admire different editorial styles. I do admire your journal, and so many of your poets. I really really enjoyed Dick WestheimerтАЩs book, which I believe you published.
This is such an interesting observation you've made, Thank you!
These are the kind of poet-to-editor conversations I'm always looking forward to.
RE guidelines: it seems odd to hope for sestinas or pantoums or any formal verse when this directive is posted:
"Sheila-Na-Gig online publishes well-crafted FREE VERSE poetry and short fiction."
Hayley, that's good to know.
However, this goes contrary to what your instructions indicate:
"Sheila-Na-Gig online publishes well-crafted FREE VERSE poetry and short fiction."
https://sheila-na-gigonline.submittable.com/submit
Ha! I guess I should update that if we want to see some traditional forms!
Yes, good idea. :-)
I've published formal verse in Sheila-Na-Gig. The editor, Hayley Mitchell Haugen, is outstanding at choosing and publicizing work. And, she herself writes excellent formal verse. ( Ms. LoSchiavo, I urge you not to make the turn at the crosswalk. ЁЯШБ ) In addition, Sheila has created--by virtue of it's online readings and other activities--an interesting community of poets who submit regularly. While they write differently from each other--no house style--they maintain a connection and enjoy reading and hearing each other's work. (I should add that this happened organically. There were no camp counselors telling everybody to get in the water.) I'm not claiming Sheila is unique, but it is a great example of what a lit mag should be and can be.
Wow. The old ban on formal verse has been lifted at Sheila-Na-Gig! Good to know.
It's still in place at Gyroscope and elsewhere.
This is a little off-topic, and I apologize, but I think it's odd and unwise for any lit mag to turn down poems based on their form rather than based on whether the poems work. Though, I can imagine that some magazines may be terrified of seeming "academic." Sigh.
Like most formalists, we have learned where to find our tribe. :-)
Thanks, George! You're the best.
And yet this is what it states:
"Sheila-Na-Gig online publishes well-crafted FREE VERSE poetry and short fiction."
https://sheila-na-gigonline.submittable.com/submit