I have of recent received various comments and correspondence in reference to a posting made on this weblog about PoetryDOTcom. Apparently my resistance to the act of calling the business a scam is bothering some, so let me explain my feelings in reference to these folks a little more clearly.

Events went as follows:
1. I submitted a scrap of poetry in a contest (I think) and was contacted not long after for the purposes of selling me on the idea of publishing it in an Anthology of sorts.
2. I submitted proofs of what was going to be published, if I purchased a copy of the Anthology of sorts – which I ordered.
(slightly expensive, unless you consider that you are guaranteed to see yourself in it) : First selling point.
3. I received a copy of this Anthology of sorts and discovered that my submission was the lead, or first, piece in the collection. : Second selling point.

This I found suspicious, or more suspicious than things already seemed; so I investigated a little and found that all participant copies displayed their piece in the lead position in their Anthology of sorts. This pretty much closed the business with me for having satisfied my curiosity.
I have found that many feel very hurt by this sequence of events, and I can understand how that can be; and I’m sure the folks selling this song and dance know this as well. If I had to guess, I would say that some of them at least fancy themselves to be teachers of lessons, of a sort – which is an excuse for the less than candid approach; or perhaps they don’t, it doesn’t matter. What does matter is what actually took place and how some are reacting to it.

I…
1. Submitted a poem, and received a request for a proof and a request to participate in a project – what was promised was a book with my poem in it.
(whether it was overpaid for or not just for that reason – well, that’s up to the individual)

2. I received what I ordered exactly as advertised – with one exception – my poem was unexpectedly on the first page.

Now this is more than I ordered or expected, after looking into things a little, the intent seemed less than savory – the magic word here is seemed.
The product was never misrepresented and was delivered as promised, I have no complaint.

On the other hand – the method suggests a screening process for the vulnerable, either those so closed in their environment that they don’t question far enough to realize what has happened, or that committed themselves in such a way that “coming clean” about it would be worse, to their way of thinking, than sending bad effort after good in an effort to recover themselves (think Angola Scam). Where it all goes from there I don’t know, but the real danger for those smarting from the act on the part of “The Folks” from having had their work put on page 1?

Be careful of the ill considered comment or the unfounded accusation; you were handled with an exactness that portrays a 2 dimensional honesty, one that has more to do with respectful than respect.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that, because you think you caught them, that you are finished being fooled.

In the words of one of my childhood heros:

“If you pick up a nickel and you see your own face on it…”

John Scarne
Scarne on Cards