Editor Interview: Button Poetry Chapbook Contest

futurist poetics

Graywolf Press, Game Over Books, The Feminist Press, Milkweed, Coffee House, Future Tense Books, Tin House Books. And so many more!

My favorite writers to work with are the folks who have clear ideas of what they think their strengths and weaknesses are. They don't have to be correct in their assessment but writers who have done that work tend to be in a better place to bring a project to fruition.

We work to support our authors in their work in more fashions and spaces than other presses. We bring the work to life in print, video, audio, live shows, workshops and more. Few other presses really create the 'author-access' or multi-media experience that we do. We are also designed with the core goal of building sustainability for our authors. We go beyond simply paying out royalties and publishing further works, we are always exploring new ways to keep our authors focused on the development of their crafts and career.

Read our books. Especially our contest winners.

I don't really think our contest ethos has an ideal submission. The promise our contest makes is to keep looking for something new, for what is next.
Our contest is not opposed to the sleek, weaponized manuscripts that MFA's hone and then release in packs but it is also not opposed to the fresh manuscript that does not understand all the rules it is breaking.

I don't think there is one consistent thing people do wrong here. I think that many folks would benefit from reading a recent winner or two, maybe googling a few of our finalists and their work.

We do our very best to ignore this when it comes to our winners. In almost all cases cover letters and previous publications are 'blinded' to our judges. We do consider these elements for open reading periods we hold after many of our contests. It is tempting to publish folks with impressive resume's of one sort or another but it flies in the face of our company and team values and so we have done our best to prevent this sort of thinking (and the nepotism it can breed) out of contest and judging process.

I can't speak for every judge who works on our contest but I personally can usually tell if a manuscript is right for the press within a few poems. That said, we have very clear systems to govern how much of a manuscript MUST get read in each stage of our contests. In most cases the desire to read more than that prescribed percentage is a strong indicator a given submission should continue on to the next round

Very little, we focus on the content first and foremost. In some cases we will have a brief conversation to confirm cultural fit or similar but generally speaking any manuscript that can make it through our bevy of judges intact is published on those grounds alone.

I don't even know where to start. I love every part of our contests but reviewing (and even organizing) 1.5-3k submissions is a wild ride. It takes a cool head, a good system and an open heart.
I think one of the most amazing parts is watching newer readers settle into the fact that not all of the manuscript can win, and that to celebrate a book, to create a chance for one to be celebrated they really need to say no, and a lot of times and that ideally, they can learn that no can be an act of love. Without no, there is no yes, no contest, no chance for all these authors.

Many of our contest winning manuscripts are published very lightly if that is the preference of the winning author. We believe that winning the contest is a testament to the manuscript in the form it was submitted and do our best to get out of the way of that power and energy. That said, many authors want more support and many runners-up are developed extensively prior to publication.

Every single book we publish is given a budget for awards. Unless an author explicitly requests that budget be spent on local or regional awards some or all of that budget goes to international and national awards.