Where can/should I submit poetry to be published? I write in

>>7560562

there's so much shitty poetry out there that even the best magazines print it. There's probably maybe less than half a dozen good living poets right now, so really, there's no competition. If you want to publish you can.

Publishing isn't the concern of a poet. Writing poetry is. You can either look to be a published poet or first look to be a poet. Up to you.

Post a poem.

>>7560739
>Post a poem.

I'll add this: if you post it, I'll tell you in detail why your poem isn't up to par and you have years to go before you're a good poet, if ever. I'll give you a few paragraphs.

>>7560739
Way to not answer his question

>>7560769

His question is pointless. It depends entirely on what type of poem he's written, his skill level, his maturity as a poet, whether or not he follows the garbage trends in contemporary poetry, what language, what format (print or online), etc.

I could be an ass and say "Poetry Magazine" because even though Poetry publishes crap, OP's poems are probably worse; I could be an ass and say "small indie journal about menstruation poems #13028", because I would imply his poems are worthless.

His question can't be answered without seeing a poem. Besides, I gave him the answer to a much better question: "should I publish?" The answer right now is probably "no".

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-08 at 9.02.07 PM.png (191KB, 678x1174px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 678x1174px

OP here, after leaving this thread for dead I read some poems in the new yorker and decided mine really weren't good enough

>>7560739
>>7560747
It's ridiculous of you to act as if you're the ultimate (and angry) voice of authority in poetry here on this anonymous imageboard, but I will post one and I hope you'll critique it as honestly/brutally as you like. Screencap of the doc attached.

>>7560739
It's easy to say publishing isn't a concern when you live in your mom's basement. Good poets and writers still need to make a living, and writing to be published is often the best way to guarantee stability and future support for more sincere literary endeavors.

>>7560789

well this is a bit better than I expected but it's not going to get published unless you're half black half asian and a woman (even better MtF) and have an active role in both ecopoetics and the LGBTwhatever movement.

There's little to say because you clearly have no interest in any aspect of poetics (neither formal, nor rhetorical, nor philosophical, etc.) and are essentially writing a little chinky war chant with line breaks and calling it verse. It isn't.

Really all I can say is to read some actual poetry from the greeks to the romans to the elizabethans forward and study it closely, because this just comes across as some novelist or short story writer that doesn't understand poetry taking a shot at it. To anyone who likes poetry and reads enough of it, trust me, we can tell who writes prose and is dipping their toes into poetry. You reek of it.

No, you will not get published in the New Yorker anytime soon.

>>7560789
I'll (try to) make my own commentary before anyone else does: I don't think there's anything obviously wrong with it, the prose is ok, the topic is not bad, et al., but it doesn't read as particularly artful or intelligent. I did it relatively fast, which you can tell. It's basically built around one device used over and over, which is itself not bad, but there should be more complexity than just that.

>>7560799

except you're a retard, poets have almost never made any money off of their poetry. Most poets are completely unknown until after they have already produced and *possibly* published their best work.

The only poet who makes money on it now is Billy Collins and he is absolutely not an actual poet. He has no literary value and will be forgotten as soon as he is dead.

>>7560807
Uhh... not really?
Many poets reap their success during their lifespans. Brodsky, Tsvetaeva, Akhmatova, Pasternak to throw out a few. As for some living poets who are well-known, Merwin, Ashberry? There are a lot of examples.

Also, unrelated, but using the word 'retard' as an insult really showcases your level.

>>7560825
>As for some living poets who are well-known, Merwin, Ashberry?

Ashbery doesn't survive on his poetry sales. Merwin survives on his translations sales, because he does translating more than he does his own poetry. Ashbery won a MacArthur grant long after he needed it and long after his last good collection (convex mirror) was published.

> Brodsky, Tsvetaeva, Akhmatova, Pasternak

It's significantly easier in a communist country that supports its poets and forces its citizens to actually read poetry and have good taste

In america nobody except maybe Whitman and, on the other side of the spectrum, the worst class of poets (Angelou, Collins, etc) have ever made a living from their poetry.

PEOPLE DO NOT LIVE OFF OF POETRY ANYMORE. They might get professorships, two or three of them will get a MacArthur well after they need it, but that's about it.

>>7560799
>>7560807
>>7560825
Vis a vis poets, he's right. Some people like those you named make it due to a combination of huge talent, apt insight, and the age, but try living off poetry today and it's very very likely you'll starve.

>>7560800
Surprisingly, I was comfortable with all this.
>...half black half asian and a woman...
Jesus christ, your posts read like the screams of the dying cis white patriarchy.
At the core, though, you're right about this too

p.s. fuck you

>>7560857
>At the core, though, you're right about this too

of course I am, look at who gets published in Poetry magazine. When Sherman Alexie, who writes shitty odes about how Native Americans were oppressed, edits most of the modern poetry anthologies, yes, yes, I am going to always be right when I say it.

I only care about how good the poem is, and most journals don't.

> p.s. fuck you

A good start is Shakespeare and Jonson by the way

>>7560872
i jacked it to The Rape of Lucrece as a boy, does that count?

I only really enjoy contemporary poetry. Does that mean i don't really like poetry very much?

>>7560894
>Does that mean i don't really like poetry very much?

no, it means you like contemporary poetry. But you really should be looking as far backwards as you can, and as far inbetween. A lot of what's being published now is garbage, and a lot of what's been preserved in the canon is excellent. It's up to you.

>>7560777
Ok so what is the more 'respectable' place to publish your poetry?
This is assuming your poetry is top tier and is more classical, rather than trendy and gimmicky.

what happened to that lit literary journal kek

>>7561726
The Poetry Foundation one is good