Well, I thought I was speaking for myself, but apparently I've been speaking for Seth, too, against his wishes.
Sorry, man.
That said, I don't have any real problem with poets writing for publication, or even poets who set goals like "first book by age 28," "first Pulitzer by 35," "be published in _Poetry_, _Ploughshares_, and _New England Review_ by Feb 15 of next year." I'm just saying that people do this. What's the problem?
I'm more interested in the notion that one writes poetry for publication in an objectively-determined list of "quality publications." "Quality publications," here, must mean (correct me if I'm wrong, Seth) something more than "publications I read and respect and would like to have my work appear in." I can probably produce a list of publications that Seth (or Ron Silliman for that matter) would consider "quality." That doesn't meant that they are "quality" publications to me.
How do I choose where to publish my work? I submit poems to journals that regularly publish poetry that I like, poetry that I find challenging, interesting, enjoyable, "excellent," and so forth. And unlike, say, Eduardo, I don't think there's anything wrong with publishing in journals edited or staffed by people one knows. If Seth's sociology of poetry postulates that poets are at least as important as the poetry, then I'd offer that publishing in your friends' journals, self-publishing, and publishing with small presses (that you respect) is a perfect example of this poet-based ideal in action. I like to publish poems in venues that speak to my sense of community.
I know there are some poets who feel that this philosophy of publishing somehow lessens their art, but I've got no qualms about it. I mean, if someone likes the poem, they'll publish it. Does it mean that I am not writing "excellent" poems if I choose NOT to publish in, say, _The Paris Review_? Maybe! But I guess I'm less concerned with excellence in the present.
Anyway.
*
A few months back a po-blogger (with a new book) wrote extensively about treating the publishing of poetry as a "business" and saw nothing wrong with doing so. This isn't exactly *my* practice, but more power to you if that's how you view it. I've noticed, that the folks who take this stance are usually people with "other" "primary" careers--lawyers, doctors, MBAs, etc. One might conjecture that it's easier to speak of poetry in such terms if you've got "something to fall back on," if that makes sense. When someone like Joe Massey writes passionately about his particular brand of "purity" in poetry, he's writing from a very different position.
Poetry is all that some people have. I can understand a sort of (perhaps naive) idealism in such a person. What I have a problem with is when the more privileged attack those who would defend their view of poetry passionately. Don't like it? Don't listen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Tony,
"Speak for yourself" is a turn of phrase...! Sheesh. I don't think you're speaking for me.
I do find it interesting that poets who have been in the Academy view lawyer-poets, doctor-poets, plumber-poets (et. al.) as the "privileged" poets.
I tend to think that poets with ties to the Academy are more suspect than others of a dedication to journal-publishing because, unlike lawyers and doctors and plumbers, they don't need journals to find an audience. Consequently, turning up their nose at supposed "careerists" is, in fact, a thinly-veiled jab at folks who (for whatever personal reason) didn't make poetry their only career.
Certainly poets with Academy ties are more likely to go right to book publication from being unpublished, or under-published at least--and usually (at that) with the assistance of those mentors or contest judges that they kept in contact with from their Academy days.
Which always seemed, to me, a pretty big privilege that the rest of us aren't afforded, and a potential basis for businessman-poets (say) to feel not a little angst toward those more privileged than they are, whether or not more talented (speaking in global terms here).
S.
Well, I wasn't talking about the academy here. And I think it would help to define what you mean by "academy poets." I can only assume you're including me under that rubric, which strikes me as more than a bit odd.
Most of us (that is, poets, or at least poets in the blogosphere) have college degrees, which means we've all spent time in the academy in some sense. I have degrees in English Lit, but not in "Creative Writing," nor do I have ties to any Creative Writing programs, nor any English Departments affiliated with Creative Writing programs. Nor do I have any sinecured mentors who have helped me along in my poetry "career."
That's simply a fact.
Our friend Joe Massey has never SEEN the academy.
When I speak of privilege, I speak of the relative social and economic privilege that comes from having attained a way of life that is "comfortable" financially and rewarding career-wise.
And in any case, an MFA isn't that much of a privilege. I say this not from personal experience, but from many MFAs I know who are having a hell of a time making ends meet.
When was the last time you taught six sections of Freshman composition in a semester for under 30K a year and no benefits?
I mean, hell, what do I know? I don't fit into either category--but turning this into a polarized debate between hypenated poets and those in "the Academy" is a false move.
There are plenty who fit into neither category. I mean, how often do you hear Silliman mention that his terminal degree is a high-school diploma?
(There is a view, prevalent among--but not confined to--"non-academy" poets, that the Academy is somehow synonymous or closely tied to such things as Language poetry. In my neck of the woods, nothing could be further from the truth.)
Also, finally, I'm not sure you understand your categories here. Most poets that I know with ties to the Academy ARE careerists, or are more guilty of it than many of the rest of us. The people who turn up their noses at "careerists" are neither career academics, nor doctors or lawyers, in my experience.
Tony,
Hi again.. no, I was thinking globally, I wasn't aiming at or thinking about you specifically. The group I'm thinking of are those I've called Academic Aesthetics in my essays, and not folks who presently work in the Academy (who I term Double Academics). It requires knowledge of the essays to follow, and as you said...that's a lot of reading.
I think we were using the word "privilege" differently. I think of having money as sort of a quid pro quo, and a "privilege" as something which is icing on the cake. The fact that many MFAs struggle financially is undoubtedly true, though that wasn't my point...my point was that they enjoy many benefits, earned or unearned, with regard to their ongoing efforts to seek book publication. We've both seen it many times: poets who go from being lightly or entirely unpublished to having a book because they knew the right person at the right time. You don't see plumber-poets doing that, which is why they (unlike others) must publish in journals--at least taking things on average.
As for money: as a public defender with substantial debts, I live check to check. I can't speak for others.
S.
hey, t. if you mean me, i actually said (or meant to say--there's frequently a difference!) that publishing IS a business for publishers and editors, and it helps relieve some frustration on the part of poets trying to get their poems out there to keep this reality in mind.
rock on, dude.
Yeah, I agree with Shanna's distinction -- there is a big difference between the art of writing poetry and publishing books. Even if your goal is just to break even -- some level of business has to come into play. But there's lots of shades -- going POD or being a self-promoter is not the same thing as say, publishing Billy Corgan because you know that'll move 10,000 copies.
And as someone who just published her first anthology -- I am extremely grateful to those who have promoted it either on their blogs or in other ways. If every contributor helped sell 4 books -- I'd make back my investment and that would greatly aid in my publishing more books.
Hey all,
Thanks for the continued discussion.
Shanna, I wasn't talking about you--just so you know. I was talking about a poet who discussed treating submission and seeking publication as a business.
And Reb, I've been remiss. I'll try to give No Tell more publicity here!
Oh Tony -- I wasn't getting on your case, just backing up a fellow publisher with more of my usual anecdotal blather.
--- But hey, thanks. I'm sure that link will sell 100 copies, at least. Word on the blog street, the ladies find you very cute.
You hear that ladies, Tony has a very sexy poem in that anthology and he wrote it for each and every one of you.
i didn't think so, but i often think i've been perfectly clear (cause you know i like to say what i mean) and then discover that i've been totally misunderstood. i think it's a virus. so i was just making sure.
pints in austin...you too, reb
'I like to publish poems in venues that speak to my sense of community.' Exactly, well said.
Of course we poets want our work out there to be read by other eyes, held by other hands, contemplated and fumbled over and perhaps contested or even returned to. Why wouldn't we? That desire is not crime, nor is it unhealthy by any means.
The crime is, however, as in all aspects of life, action taken for the wrong reason. Publishing for the sake of publishing might lend me to question your ethics as a poet, but if I dig your poetry, maybe I don't care so much and thanks for submitting it to X journal so I could read it.
At the same time, how dare you publish just to gain notches on your poetic belt. It is akin to that, in some tilted way. Isn't getting your poetry out there in the ether about the poetry, the work, what it does and where it takes you, not an ego stroking session?
We all want publishing credits, but when those credits overshadow the poetry that gave you them in the first place, I'd spend some time with that, thinking about what that means about you. I don't care if you're a student, a lawyer, a receptionist, a professor, or a janitor. Get your money and your poems published where you can, in the best ways you see possible. We all want/ need exposure and funds, that's one of a poet's more pressing struggles. Thing is we've got to stay kind in getting there.
The way I see it, the same principle applies to publishing in venues wherein you have personal connections as it does to earning money and publishing your poems. There are so many venues through which to gain access to and grow further exposed to poetry--journals (print and online), individual collections, anthologies, blogs, friends, enemies, the academic environment, a book you found in the park.
Let's face it, we live in a competative world, and poets know that just as well as anyone. We've all got to make our way. Let's make it easier by doing what we have to with some semblance of a heart. This has been an enlightening discussion to read through.
Post a Comment