Writer assumes fake identities; editor moves from web to print; Brown partners with Callaloo; reviews of Tiny Molecules & Molecules--A Tiny Lit Mag; & more!
I'd have to agree. Not to be mean, but, aside from the honesty and integrity issues, it seems to a be a bit of racial dog whistling and reinforces biases and resentments against marginalized groups in a country that is, after all, changing demographically and culturally. As for the merit argument made by some comments here, we should also consider that "merit" can often be subjective and reflect all sorts of biases and assumptions.
To be fair, Liz, I fooled every type of literary mag out there, from neutral-ish experimental ones (Arteidolia) to queer ones (those mentioned here). The scope of the project far extends beyond that which was mentioned here.
The good thing that might have come out of all this, is that it shows editors are trying to be inclusive and enthusiastic in their choices of work published.
Jasper Ceylon's experiment shocks only if you believe that lit mags select on the basis of quality and that quality is a value-free term. Quality is entangled with what is of interest to a society in general and a lit mag in particular. It makes sense to me that readers and editors would be interested in hearing about the world from under-represented writers. That's legitimate. And to ask whether this compromises quality is the wrong question to ask. TIme was when the language of wasp america was synonymous with "quality." Only certain topics, diction, setttings, people, words, etc from a certain slice of america meant "quality" to readers and editors. Jasper Ceylon's experiment shows that readers and editors are willing to expand their definitions of "quality" iin the interest of learning about the world from writers whose worlds and words have been ignored.
First, I apologize for getting your name wrong. I take a different view of writing, reading, and submitting poems for publication so that they will be read by a receptive audience.
I see no problem with that. Why shouldn't their work be prioritized and rewarded? No one cared when white men's work was the only work celebrated. It also assumes that others' work isn't worthy. And given the recent backtracking in the world of rights, maybe prioritizing and rewarding it, is exactly what should be happening.
Gah. Especially in these political times when the government is trying to erase the contributions of women and people of color from gov't agency websites, this kind of argument is more than annoying; it's downright offensive. Seriously, go read and learn something. I don't know if threads can be muted as on Bluesky or Twitter, but I'm about to try. It's not our job to educate you about the last 50+ years of thinking about "literary merit," race, and gender. Sheesh!
Chiming in late here. I checked out the acceptance rates of these mags on Submission Grinder / Chill Subs. One of them (Corporeal) has an 80% acceptance rate, and others accept 30-50% (Roi Faineant, Bitchin Kitsch, Afterpast, Rogue Agent). They are obviously not that selective - which is their prerogative, especially if their goal is to champion certain voices. But regardless of your view on that, frankly, this is a poor experiment. If you submit a “bad” poem to a few of these mags, you will almost always get an acceptance just based on the numbers. Vs if you submit that poem (under any name) to 3 mags with a 1-5% (or even 10%) rate you will almost always be rejected. I don’t think he shared the full data but my guess is that his experimental / statistical methods are suspect.
I applaud Ceylon for exposing the phoniness of some lit mags and EICs. I understand a lit mag being a queer magazine or a women's only magazine or whatever... And when a lit mag is open to everyone, but they add they offer perks to marginalized voices, whether it's free subs or they "prefer" work from people in those communities, that's fine, too .. BUT to publish people just because they're "x," "y," or "z" regardless of quality of writing is nothing but virtue signaling and is wrong on so many levels, for so many reasons. I am all inclusive - I don't care what color you are, what your political affiliations are, what your religion is, or what lifestyle you live, if you write a quality romance, you're published. And I have published all kinds of stories - LGBTQ, sapphic, romantasy between person and dragon, elephants personified and falling in love at the watering hole, and my contributors are just as diverse, from all walks of life and all corners of the earth... And that's the way ALL lit mags should be run (all lit mags that are open to anyone, that is). They should be all inclusive with acceptances based on the quality of writing and the subject (if it's a themed call), period. It's hard enough to get published... there's plenty of legitimate competition out there without certain people getting ahead just because of where they were born or how they live...and, in all honesty, you're not doing a marganilized writer any favors if they're submitting trash and you're publishing it - that's giving them false hope. How about, if they're great writers you publish them and, if they're not, you give them feedback that helps them become better writers so they can more easily have their voices heard? Now, that's helping!
For years, I’ve wondered how many writers do this to gain an angle. It’s theoretically possible to out somebody as a fake, but realistically not feasible for most small journals and publishers. And some claims aren’t verifiable at all. I’d also say, however, that given this guy’s ethics, I am loathe to believe his “Everything got accepted” claim, which seems like a convenient exaggeration. And given his desire for wrongly earned attention, why are we giving it to him?
Deception, sadly, will remain part of the publishing game for as long as humans are involved--i.e. always. The editors who chose what the author himself considered mediocre poems were engaged in one of the most pernicious forms--self-deception. They read into the poems some measure of quality because of the perceived sexual and racial makeup of the author.
It will be nice if we're turning a corner on the current biases that plague publishing, the mirror image of the male-oriented ones of the past. Neither speak to our higher angels.
The Jasper Ceylon stunt is brilliant. He submitted crap, and yet it was accepted every time. What more evidence do we need that playing the oppressed minority card is the ticket to publishing success?
Andrea—speaking as a queer, nonbinary writer, those identities are not some sort of golden ticket that gets every piece accepted. To anyone who says so, my lengthy rejections list begs to differ. So good job not lying, because it likely wouldn't have helped.
Well, I mean, Kent Johnson had some pretty interesting things to say about supposed authorial authenticity. He also demonstrated (to the discomfort of many) how often judgments of supposed aesthetic quality actually hinge on whether the author has the appropriate social standing. His criticisms were pretty astute. But Kent operated in a pretty deep satirical mode (although it wasn't always clear when he was in that mode or all-in).
Whereas, this guy strikes me as not using his moment to, uh, its fullest potential. I mean, sure, write that poem about decolonizing your coffee pot. It might even be pretty good. But what *do* you have to say about authorial authenticity, really?? And how is that related to decolonizing a poem, or an author, or a journal, or the whole industry, for that matter??
I always like to boldface the "good intentions" portion of the "Road to Hell". It reminds me that I must always avoid even the hint of deception in order to avoid self-deception.
I think Jasper spent a lot of energy proving what a lot of people already knew. Bias has and will always exist in the world. How shocking. But in its nefarious cruelty his plan feels born of that classic writer's reaction to being rejected one time too many who, enraged at the stupid guardians of the slush pile, goes on a crusade to slay the people manning the gate. A version of the old copy-an-obscure-poem-by-Poe-and-submit-it-as-mine ruse. The one where you go "hahah! As I thought!" at the end. Proving nothing of value and being just as empty at the end as you were at the start.
I accept the fact that I may be the victim of such bias as Jasper "exposed" by virtue of the insignificance I've apparently attained because I am old, white, and male. But as I grudgingly approach that last door in the clouds, pulling my self-forged chain of guilt Ebenezer, I find my time is better spent trying my best to perfect my own shit rather than wasting my time demonstrating the shit others are full of.
I'm hoping to build a beautiful Wikipedia blurb after I croak. I don't have time to waste.
I agree, it's confusing to respond to the right comment. I was on my phone as well, which probably made the interface still more confusing. Yes, I was saying that your construal of Vicky Harris's remark was wildly oversimplifying. In general, it looks to me like you're wading into a discussion that is far more complex than you realize. No one is saying that anyone "deserves preferential treatment." What people are saying is that there is no such thing as some pure notion of merit, totally divorced from identity markers or social realities. That idea is at least a couple of generations out of date by now. I don't know what your background is, but there are times when maybe it's better to read and learn and listen than to swing wildly around with broad, irrelevant generalizations. That's what I wanted to express! :)
My position on this Jasper Ceylon's deception is the same as the one you tweeted, "pointless and a bit cruel."
These kinds of gotchas force BIPOC, and other groups, into the space of having to defend their work even more, which is wrong.
I'd have to agree. Not to be mean, but, aside from the honesty and integrity issues, it seems to a be a bit of racial dog whistling and reinforces biases and resentments against marginalized groups in a country that is, after all, changing demographically and culturally. As for the merit argument made by some comments here, we should also consider that "merit" can often be subjective and reflect all sorts of biases and assumptions.
To be fair, Liz, I fooled every type of literary mag out there, from neutral-ish experimental ones (Arteidolia) to queer ones (those mentioned here). The scope of the project far extends beyond that which was mentioned here.
The good thing that might have come out of all this, is that it shows editors are trying to be inclusive and enthusiastic in their choices of work published.
Jasper Ceylon's experiment shocks only if you believe that lit mags select on the basis of quality and that quality is a value-free term. Quality is entangled with what is of interest to a society in general and a lit mag in particular. It makes sense to me that readers and editors would be interested in hearing about the world from under-represented writers. That's legitimate. And to ask whether this compromises quality is the wrong question to ask. TIme was when the language of wasp america was synonymous with "quality." Only certain topics, diction, setttings, people, words, etc from a certain slice of america meant "quality" to readers and editors. Jasper Ceylon's experiment shows that readers and editors are willing to expand their definitions of "quality" iin the interest of learning about the world from writers whose worlds and words have been ignored.
First, I apologize for getting your name wrong. I take a different view of writing, reading, and submitting poems for publication so that they will be read by a receptive audience.
This is the kind of madness that happens when lit mags start caring about the sex and race of writers.
Not just “caring”—prioritizing and rewarding it.
I see no problem with that. Why shouldn't their work be prioritized and rewarded? No one cared when white men's work was the only work celebrated. It also assumes that others' work isn't worthy. And given the recent backtracking in the world of rights, maybe prioritizing and rewarding it, is exactly what should be happening.
I see all the problems in the world with discriminating on the basis of sex or race.
Merit should be the sole criteria.
I agree, merit should be. But until the world is a perfect world, I have no problem with lifting everyone until everyone is lifted.
What you're saying, implicitly, is that women writers aren't good enough to to succeed on the basis of merit.
No, I'm saying already instilled biases against women assumes, precludes there is no merit in their work.
Nope, not at all. That is wildly oversimplifying.
YES- Merit only- this is literature not the classroom.
See the above and below comments. There is no such thing as pure "merit." Come on.
True!
You think it should be prioritized and rewarded even when it’s crap?
No, but the assumption shouldn't be that certain groups' work is crap. Of course crap shouldn't be rewarded, and the gotchas feed that narrative.
Did you read the article? The author admitted it was crap.
The editors apparently did not think so.
Yes. Brazenly.
Gah. Especially in these political times when the government is trying to erase the contributions of women and people of color from gov't agency websites, this kind of argument is more than annoying; it's downright offensive. Seriously, go read and learn something. I don't know if threads can be muted as on Bluesky or Twitter, but I'm about to try. It's not our job to educate you about the last 50+ years of thinking about "literary merit," race, and gender. Sheesh!
Your comment is arrogant.
Merci for the compliment.
Chiming in late here. I checked out the acceptance rates of these mags on Submission Grinder / Chill Subs. One of them (Corporeal) has an 80% acceptance rate, and others accept 30-50% (Roi Faineant, Bitchin Kitsch, Afterpast, Rogue Agent). They are obviously not that selective - which is their prerogative, especially if their goal is to champion certain voices. But regardless of your view on that, frankly, this is a poor experiment. If you submit a “bad” poem to a few of these mags, you will almost always get an acceptance just based on the numbers. Vs if you submit that poem (under any name) to 3 mags with a 1-5% (or even 10%) rate you will almost always be rejected. I don’t think he shared the full data but my guess is that his experimental / statistical methods are suspect.
I applaud Ceylon for exposing the phoniness of some lit mags and EICs. I understand a lit mag being a queer magazine or a women's only magazine or whatever... And when a lit mag is open to everyone, but they add they offer perks to marginalized voices, whether it's free subs or they "prefer" work from people in those communities, that's fine, too .. BUT to publish people just because they're "x," "y," or "z" regardless of quality of writing is nothing but virtue signaling and is wrong on so many levels, for so many reasons. I am all inclusive - I don't care what color you are, what your political affiliations are, what your religion is, or what lifestyle you live, if you write a quality romance, you're published. And I have published all kinds of stories - LGBTQ, sapphic, romantasy between person and dragon, elephants personified and falling in love at the watering hole, and my contributors are just as diverse, from all walks of life and all corners of the earth... And that's the way ALL lit mags should be run (all lit mags that are open to anyone, that is). They should be all inclusive with acceptances based on the quality of writing and the subject (if it's a themed call), period. It's hard enough to get published... there's plenty of legitimate competition out there without certain people getting ahead just because of where they were born or how they live...and, in all honesty, you're not doing a marganilized writer any favors if they're submitting trash and you're publishing it - that's giving them false hope. How about, if they're great writers you publish them and, if they're not, you give them feedback that helps them become better writers so they can more easily have their voices heard? Now, that's helping!
For years, I’ve wondered how many writers do this to gain an angle. It’s theoretically possible to out somebody as a fake, but realistically not feasible for most small journals and publishers. And some claims aren’t verifiable at all. I’d also say, however, that given this guy’s ethics, I am loathe to believe his “Everything got accepted” claim, which seems like a convenient exaggeration. And given his desire for wrongly earned attention, why are we giving it to him?
Deception, sadly, will remain part of the publishing game for as long as humans are involved--i.e. always. The editors who chose what the author himself considered mediocre poems were engaged in one of the most pernicious forms--self-deception. They read into the poems some measure of quality because of the perceived sexual and racial makeup of the author.
It will be nice if we're turning a corner on the current biases that plague publishing, the mirror image of the male-oriented ones of the past. Neither speak to our higher angels.
The Jasper Ceylon stunt is brilliant. He submitted crap, and yet it was accepted every time. What more evidence do we need that playing the oppressed minority card is the ticket to publishing success?
Unverifiable claim that conveniently fits a narrative.
Andrea—speaking as a queer, nonbinary writer, those identities are not some sort of golden ticket that gets every piece accepted. To anyone who says so, my lengthy rejections list begs to differ. So good job not lying, because it likely wouldn't have helped.
Make room for me on that bench.
Well, I mean, Kent Johnson had some pretty interesting things to say about supposed authorial authenticity. He also demonstrated (to the discomfort of many) how often judgments of supposed aesthetic quality actually hinge on whether the author has the appropriate social standing. His criticisms were pretty astute. But Kent operated in a pretty deep satirical mode (although it wasn't always clear when he was in that mode or all-in).
Whereas, this guy strikes me as not using his moment to, uh, its fullest potential. I mean, sure, write that poem about decolonizing your coffee pot. It might even be pretty good. But what *do* you have to say about authorial authenticity, really?? And how is that related to decolonizing a poem, or an author, or a journal, or the whole industry, for that matter??
Jasper thinks he's proven something that wasn't a secret. Point taken, but a cruel 'trick.'
I always like to boldface the "good intentions" portion of the "Road to Hell". It reminds me that I must always avoid even the hint of deception in order to avoid self-deception.
I think Jasper spent a lot of energy proving what a lot of people already knew. Bias has and will always exist in the world. How shocking. But in its nefarious cruelty his plan feels born of that classic writer's reaction to being rejected one time too many who, enraged at the stupid guardians of the slush pile, goes on a crusade to slay the people manning the gate. A version of the old copy-an-obscure-poem-by-Poe-and-submit-it-as-mine ruse. The one where you go "hahah! As I thought!" at the end. Proving nothing of value and being just as empty at the end as you were at the start.
I accept the fact that I may be the victim of such bias as Jasper "exposed" by virtue of the insignificance I've apparently attained because I am old, white, and male. But as I grudgingly approach that last door in the clouds, pulling my self-forged chain of guilt Ebenezer, I find my time is better spent trying my best to perfect my own shit rather than wasting my time demonstrating the shit others are full of.
I'm hoping to build a beautiful Wikipedia blurb after I croak. I don't have time to waste.
The whole anti-woke reactionary thing. (insert eye-roll emoji here)
Look, Ma -- I made the (Lit Mag) news!
Thanks for your comment above, Jasper. I've taken note that the experiment did include a broader group of lit mags.
Damn, I submitted a few micro fiction pieces to Spry earlier this year (mid March). Guess I'll just wait and see what happens.
Could someone give me the number for the old boys' club?
I keep looking but I can't find it.
I think it's probably yours! ;)
I agree, it's confusing to respond to the right comment. I was on my phone as well, which probably made the interface still more confusing. Yes, I was saying that your construal of Vicky Harris's remark was wildly oversimplifying. In general, it looks to me like you're wading into a discussion that is far more complex than you realize. No one is saying that anyone "deserves preferential treatment." What people are saying is that there is no such thing as some pure notion of merit, totally divorced from identity markers or social realities. That idea is at least a couple of generations out of date by now. I don't know what your background is, but there are times when maybe it's better to read and learn and listen than to swing wildly around with broad, irrelevant generalizations. That's what I wanted to express! :)