In a forum that imposes few boundaries, these are important questions, and, certainly, the answers are not cut and dried.
We would like to hear what you think about libel and slander, so feel free to post in the comment section, which is wide open.
I would like to elevate TWO well-written comments to post status, preferably someone who has NOT yet had an elevated post in this forum.
Thread: What is Legitimate Academic Publishing? (Athena)
I'd love to go from Hunger Mountain right into a piece on Colrain--which is the same deal, really, except people spend much more money, and Joan Houlihan and Jeffrey Levine are editors who can publish their "students" and perhaps eventually judge them in a "contest," thus providing incentive for the aspiring writer to pay the "manuscript doctor" fees.
Most of these poets would never pay a thousand dollars, or whatever it is they have to pay, for a vanity publication, and Levine and Houlihan would vociferously deny they are in the "vanity publication" business, but if they collect money to edit a person's manuscript, become acquainted with that person and their work in the process of taking their money, and then subsequently publish them in a magazine or a book--how can any objective viewer not reach the conclusion that this is, in fact, vanity publishing?
If an editor receives an manuscript out of the blue and says, "Wow, I must publish this," fine, wonderful.
But if an editor takes hefty fees from a poet for "manuscript doctoring" services and then subsequently publishes that poet, one has to be rather naive not to know what's going on.
And then, of course, the "students" and the Colrain manuscript "doctors" trumpet the "success" of the "manuscript doctor" retreats.
Okay, now we just put a headline on it:
HOW MUCH "LEGITIMATE" ACADEMIC PUBLISHING IS ACTUALLY VANITY PUBLISHING?
Most of these poets would never pay a thousand dollars, or whatever it is they have to pay, for a vanity publication, and Levine and Houlihan would vociferously deny they are in the "vanity publication" business, but if they collect money to edit a person's manuscript, become acquainted with that person and their work in the process of taking their money, and then subsequently publish them in a magazine or a book--how can any objective viewer not reach the conclusion that this is, in fact, vanity publishing?
If an editor receives an manuscript out of the blue and says, "Wow, I must publish this," fine, wonderful.
But if an editor takes hefty fees from a poet for "manuscript doctoring" services and then subsequently publishes that poet, one has to be rather naive not to know what's going on.
And then, of course, the "students" and the Colrain manuscript "doctors" trumpet the "success" of the "manuscript doctor" retreats.
Okay, now we just put a headline on it:
HOW MUCH "LEGITIMATE" ACADEMIC PUBLISHING IS ACTUALLY VANITY PUBLISHING?
Guest Writer: Manuscript Doctors--Quacks? (Athena)
Hunger Mountain, affiliated with Vermont College and the Hunger Mountain literary magazine, auctions manuscript critiques.
There’s something a little slimy about this, and it’s not because you might not get a decent critique from these people; what bothers me is that what’s really being "sold" is not so much these folks’ "critical expertise" (which could be anywhere from excellent to non-existent) but something utterly unspoken—that maybe these writers will, through their connections and the force of their personality, help one get published.
Isn’t that what people who buy these critiques are secretly hoping for? And why shouldn’t they hope for that?
And why shouldn’t there be the slightest chance it could happen?
But since it’s all insinuation and none of it is fact, it makes the "sale" somehow…creepy. In almost all instances, maybe in ALL instances, 100 dollars or more is paid to get a critique that one could also get, for free, from a friend—but the money is paid in the hope that "maybe this somewhat successful writer will fall in love with my work and become an advocate for it."
The payment, or "sale" is completely based on unspoken, false expectations.
I suppose that’s why this is run like a "benefit auction." This mitigates its crass, commercial character. It still doesn’t change the fact that something is being sold.
Maybe the Hunger Mountain site should be required to post a caveat:
"These writers are NOT offering their services as commercial editors, publishers, or advocates for a writer’s work. They only provide critiques, as stated, and there is no guarantee the writer/purchaser of said critique will agree with the critique."
_______________________________________________
Admin note: There is nothing inherently wrong with offering or accepting editorial services for a fee, but I agree with Athena that the Hunger Mountain approach raises some red flags. If this were an unknown literary agency or a poetry [dot] com type of site, the watchdog groups would be all over it with warnings.
I suggest that if you are thinking about bidding on these services to please ask questions first; be clear on expectations and know what you are getting for your money.
Each auction offers an email address for questions--use it before placing a bid. Getting specifics in an email will be your best protection should the deal go awry.
I also welcome Hunger Mountain staff/reviewers to respond.
There’s something a little slimy about this, and it’s not because you might not get a decent critique from these people; what bothers me is that what’s really being "sold" is not so much these folks’ "critical expertise" (which could be anywhere from excellent to non-existent) but something utterly unspoken—that maybe these writers will, through their connections and the force of their personality, help one get published.
Isn’t that what people who buy these critiques are secretly hoping for? And why shouldn’t they hope for that?
And why shouldn’t there be the slightest chance it could happen?
But since it’s all insinuation and none of it is fact, it makes the "sale" somehow…creepy. In almost all instances, maybe in ALL instances, 100 dollars or more is paid to get a critique that one could also get, for free, from a friend—but the money is paid in the hope that "maybe this somewhat successful writer will fall in love with my work and become an advocate for it."
The payment, or "sale" is completely based on unspoken, false expectations.
I suppose that’s why this is run like a "benefit auction." This mitigates its crass, commercial character. It still doesn’t change the fact that something is being sold.
Maybe the Hunger Mountain site should be required to post a caveat:
"These writers are NOT offering their services as commercial editors, publishers, or advocates for a writer’s work. They only provide critiques, as stated, and there is no guarantee the writer/purchaser of said critique will agree with the critique."
_______________________________________________
Admin note: There is nothing inherently wrong with offering or accepting editorial services for a fee, but I agree with Athena that the Hunger Mountain approach raises some red flags. If this were an unknown literary agency or a poetry [dot] com type of site, the watchdog groups would be all over it with warnings.
I suggest that if you are thinking about bidding on these services to please ask questions first; be clear on expectations and know what you are getting for your money.
Each auction offers an email address for questions--use it before placing a bid. Getting specifics in an email will be your best protection should the deal go awry.
I also welcome Hunger Mountain staff/reviewers to respond.
Guest Writer: PAULA ABDUL = JORIE GRAHAM? (by Monday Love)
The popularity of "American Idol" would seem to confirm that large swaths of pop music audiences prefer "Judging/Competition/Win-Lose/Survivor" thrills to the actual music, and why is it no surprise that a major judge on "American Idol" has no clue and doesn't even know what she's judging?
When "the Contest" (the elated winner, the bitter loser) becomes more important than what is actually being judged, it is inevitable that we have "judges" like Paula Abdul, who, like Jorie Graham, are mired in big, stinky, judging scandals.
There are other similarities, too; both Graham and Abdul are "good people"; they are kind, they love giving praise, and they adore crowning "winners," but if the judge shows no responsibility to what is ostensibly being judged, all this "nice" is merely a cover for damaging incompetence which hurts everyone in the long run.
Both Graham and Abdul have been judged favorably for doing (poetry, singing) what they in turn, "judge," but it's been a long time since Abdul has had a genuine hit, and it's been a long time since Graham has written a good poem.
Abdul was caught on live TV, this week, "judging" a number which hadn't even happened yet.
Graham has been caught (most notably by Foetry.com) giving poetry prizes to students and lovers rather than actually judging contests.
Graham holds the highest academic poetry position in the world at Harvard, and yet she's a scandal-ridden judge, and her actual poetry credentials are weak: she can't write verse like the bards of old, or even write verse like living versifiers, she's never published an essay of note on poetry: theory, history, or any aspect of the art, and today Ms. Graham has been reduced to waging a cynical campaign to save her poetic reputation--by showing how much she cares about the planet. Jorie Graham cares more about global warming than you do, and this makes her not only the best poet, but a terrific judge of poetry, it seems.
After her poetry contest judging scandals, Graham said she would never judge poetry contests again. But now Graham is back as a judge, signing on to judge a big poetry contest. Maybe Graham envies Paula Abdul and all the attention and power judging confers.
Who knows? Hey, you go, girl!
--Monday Love
___________________________________
(Foetry friends and foes will remember Monday Love as being a regular on the now-archived Foetry forum.)
When "the Contest" (the elated winner, the bitter loser) becomes more important than what is actually being judged, it is inevitable that we have "judges" like Paula Abdul, who, like Jorie Graham, are mired in big, stinky, judging scandals.
There are other similarities, too; both Graham and Abdul are "good people"; they are kind, they love giving praise, and they adore crowning "winners," but if the judge shows no responsibility to what is ostensibly being judged, all this "nice" is merely a cover for damaging incompetence which hurts everyone in the long run.
Both Graham and Abdul have been judged favorably for doing (poetry, singing) what they in turn, "judge," but it's been a long time since Abdul has had a genuine hit, and it's been a long time since Graham has written a good poem.
Abdul was caught on live TV, this week, "judging" a number which hadn't even happened yet.
Graham has been caught (most notably by Foetry.com) giving poetry prizes to students and lovers rather than actually judging contests.
Graham holds the highest academic poetry position in the world at Harvard, and yet she's a scandal-ridden judge, and her actual poetry credentials are weak: she can't write verse like the bards of old, or even write verse like living versifiers, she's never published an essay of note on poetry: theory, history, or any aspect of the art, and today Ms. Graham has been reduced to waging a cynical campaign to save her poetic reputation--by showing how much she cares about the planet. Jorie Graham cares more about global warming than you do, and this makes her not only the best poet, but a terrific judge of poetry, it seems.
After her poetry contest judging scandals, Graham said she would never judge poetry contests again. But now Graham is back as a judge, signing on to judge a big poetry contest. Maybe Graham envies Paula Abdul and all the attention and power judging confers.
Who knows? Hey, you go, girl!
--Monday Love
___________________________________
(Foetry friends and foes will remember Monday Love as being a regular on the now-archived Foetry forum.)
A Second Open Letter to Tree Swenson, President and Executive Director of the Academy of American Poets
Dear Tree Swenson,
Of course I understand that The Academy of American Poets is a separate entity and that the Poets.org Forum’s administration is not under your direct control—indeed, I had exactly the same conversation with Jason Chapman, the IT Director at P&W, who was furious when I wrote Kevin Larimer, the Deputy Editor of P&W Magazine, after I was banned from the pw.org Speakeasy last March. But do take notice, my argument was not that Kevin Larimer should intervene, but simply that he should know what was happening on the Speakeasy. He was after all the Editor who wrote directly about both Jeffrey Levine and Bin Ramke in the Magazine, and it was Joan Houlihan’s attempt to white-wash them both in her Letter in the Nov/Dec 2007 issue that led directly to my banishment.
The whole Poets & Writers Community needs the facts, dear Kevin Larimer and Tree Swenson—they need their own history. My thread called “Does A Poet’s Behavior Matter?” is at present locked on pw.org, and I’m sure the plan is to delete it. Ditto the passionately argued “Mediation” thread which in the end exonerated ACommoner, i.e. me, completely. If it’s all gone, then Poets & Writers descends back into ignorance, and I mean the community does, I mean you both do, and I mean me.
That’s the point.
There are two other points I want to make as well. First of all, the Poets.org Forum is probably the most active meeting point for poets of any website in the world, and that’s a huge responsibility. And why is it so famous? Because I tell you from my own experience it’s certainly NOT because the Site Administrator has created such a free and welcoming environment! Indeed, you should be aware that the whole site is school-marmish, and that most of the participants are as dutiful as boyscouts longing to get those badges one by one so that eventually they too can stand up tall in the parade as Moderators! Olie North’s on Parnassus, so salute!
The Poets.org forum does some wonderful work with its young people, but it’s youthfulness is also a very big part of the problem, particularly when a 68 year old man like myself gets banned on trumped-up charges. The Academy of American Poets has to represent views as uncomfortable as my own too, you know, unless you think poetry has no room for the uncomfortable. Because if your website has no room for a 68 year old expat maverick with degrees from Columbia, Yale and Cambridge, a bunch of credits anyway, and a passable but peaceful essay style, then you’re not serving the poets of America. You’re just serving the Moderators!
So that’s my first point—you simply have to get in there and change the management style so that the Forum gets out of the kindergarten where it’s stuck. My case should have alarms bells ringing all over the place, and I sincerely hope they’re being heard. Use my death well, lay a little wreath on my gravestone, even if most of the lettering has been deleted and the rest will go as soon as the mourners go home. If you lay that wreath in good faith, learn something from my demise, and keep my work up as SIGNIFICANT POETS.ORG HISTORY, that’s all I could ask. Indeed, that’s what I came for, not to be critiqued or get medals!
The final point is about Alan Cordle’s threat to you, dear Tree Swenson. I have no idea what he was referring too, and I don’t want to know either. I just have to say to you as I have said above to Joan Houlihan and Janet Holmes, if one is stalking oneself then one’s going to get stalked. The only way out of it is to get out of it—refuse to participate in isolating anyone, refuse to accept one iota of harassment, marginalization or destructive innuendo. Make the Academy truly the Academy of American Poets, where such behavior is not only unacceptable but unthinkable.
With very best wishes,
Christopher Woodman
Of course I understand that The Academy of American Poets is a separate entity and that the Poets.org Forum’s administration is not under your direct control—indeed, I had exactly the same conversation with Jason Chapman, the IT Director at P&W, who was furious when I wrote Kevin Larimer, the Deputy Editor of P&W Magazine, after I was banned from the pw.org Speakeasy last March. But do take notice, my argument was not that Kevin Larimer should intervene, but simply that he should know what was happening on the Speakeasy. He was after all the Editor who wrote directly about both Jeffrey Levine and Bin Ramke in the Magazine, and it was Joan Houlihan’s attempt to white-wash them both in her Letter in the Nov/Dec 2007 issue that led directly to my banishment.
The whole Poets & Writers Community needs the facts, dear Kevin Larimer and Tree Swenson—they need their own history. My thread called “Does A Poet’s Behavior Matter?” is at present locked on pw.org, and I’m sure the plan is to delete it. Ditto the passionately argued “Mediation” thread which in the end exonerated ACommoner, i.e. me, completely. If it’s all gone, then Poets & Writers descends back into ignorance, and I mean the community does, I mean you both do, and I mean me.
That’s the point.
There are two other points I want to make as well. First of all, the Poets.org Forum is probably the most active meeting point for poets of any website in the world, and that’s a huge responsibility. And why is it so famous? Because I tell you from my own experience it’s certainly NOT because the Site Administrator has created such a free and welcoming environment! Indeed, you should be aware that the whole site is school-marmish, and that most of the participants are as dutiful as boyscouts longing to get those badges one by one so that eventually they too can stand up tall in the parade as Moderators! Olie North’s on Parnassus, so salute!
The Poets.org forum does some wonderful work with its young people, but it’s youthfulness is also a very big part of the problem, particularly when a 68 year old man like myself gets banned on trumped-up charges. The Academy of American Poets has to represent views as uncomfortable as my own too, you know, unless you think poetry has no room for the uncomfortable. Because if your website has no room for a 68 year old expat maverick with degrees from Columbia, Yale and Cambridge, a bunch of credits anyway, and a passable but peaceful essay style, then you’re not serving the poets of America. You’re just serving the Moderators!
So that’s my first point—you simply have to get in there and change the management style so that the Forum gets out of the kindergarten where it’s stuck. My case should have alarms bells ringing all over the place, and I sincerely hope they’re being heard. Use my death well, lay a little wreath on my gravestone, even if most of the lettering has been deleted and the rest will go as soon as the mourners go home. If you lay that wreath in good faith, learn something from my demise, and keep my work up as SIGNIFICANT POETS.ORG HISTORY, that’s all I could ask. Indeed, that’s what I came for, not to be critiqued or get medals!
The final point is about Alan Cordle’s threat to you, dear Tree Swenson. I have no idea what he was referring too, and I don’t want to know either. I just have to say to you as I have said above to Joan Houlihan and Janet Holmes, if one is stalking oneself then one’s going to get stalked. The only way out of it is to get out of it—refuse to participate in isolating anyone, refuse to accept one iota of harassment, marginalization or destructive innuendo. Make the Academy truly the Academy of American Poets, where such behavior is not only unacceptable but unthinkable.
With very best wishes,
Christopher Woodman
Thread: Why Poets.net Exists and When "Pruning" is Another Name for Squashing....
...Serious Debate.
ADDED 4/28: Today, I received a letter from PEN, which, in support of releasing 38 Chinese imprisoned writers before the Beijing Olympics, quotes Don DeLillo's views on freedom of speech for writers:
But the same principle could be extended to the oppression of outsider writers in a free society, their views squashed and ignored by "important" publications and forums under the ruse of "civility." In some ways, this kind of oppression is more insidious than the blatant kind because it is widely practiced by those in positions of power and accepted by those who are scrabbling for the top.
Often, those who disagree with the majority viewpoint are trampled by those in power and stepped upon by those on the way up.
April 9, 2008: The "pruning" thread has been "pruned" over at poets.org, so I'm reposting my rationale for Poets.net here:
Poets.net exists because of what has happened [at poets.org] and at another forum.
I assure you all that developing a new forum was not a part of my summer plans.
I used to tell my students (and others) that poets.org was a good space for new writers, but now I'm rethinking that.
ACommoner came to this forum wanting to discuss some important issues facing the literary community (an overall silencing of opposing viewpoints being his major concern). He thought this would be a good place.
But he was told to go somewhere else.
If a poet cannot express (on a forum that accepts public money) controversial ideas and, yes, unpleasant information about known foets, then it's business as usual, no?
In short, if you don't like someone or what he/she has to say, just take away his/her voice, which is apparently what poets.org does with its banning and "pruning" policies.
I welcome ACommoner and whoever else wants to show up at Poets.net.
Jennifer
If you had your text "pruned," feel free to replicate it here.
ADDED 4/28: Today, I received a letter from PEN, which, in support of releasing 38 Chinese imprisoned writers before the Beijing Olympics, quotes Don DeLillo's views on freedom of speech for writers:
A writer's freedom of expression is synonymous with his right to live. Writing is more than a profession and a duty--it is a writer's life-blood, and when the state denies the free flow of language and ideas, it defines itself in important ways in the eyes of the world. The more nearly total the state, the more vivid and living is the imprisoned writer.Now it might be argued that DeLillo was referring to oppressive societies, and that is absolutely right. Most reasonable people would agree that a government denying its writers freedom of expression is an abomination.
But the same principle could be extended to the oppression of outsider writers in a free society, their views squashed and ignored by "important" publications and forums under the ruse of "civility." In some ways, this kind of oppression is more insidious than the blatant kind because it is widely practiced by those in positions of power and accepted by those who are scrabbling for the top.
Often, those who disagree with the majority viewpoint are trampled by those in power and stepped upon by those on the way up.
April 9, 2008: The "pruning" thread has been "pruned" over at poets.org, so I'm reposting my rationale for Poets.net here:
Poets.net exists because of what has happened [at poets.org] and at another forum.
I assure you all that developing a new forum was not a part of my summer plans.
I used to tell my students (and others) that poets.org was a good space for new writers, but now I'm rethinking that.
ACommoner came to this forum wanting to discuss some important issues facing the literary community (an overall silencing of opposing viewpoints being his major concern). He thought this would be a good place.
But he was told to go somewhere else.
If a poet cannot express (on a forum that accepts public money) controversial ideas and, yes, unpleasant information about known foets, then it's business as usual, no?
In short, if you don't like someone or what he/she has to say, just take away his/her voice, which is apparently what poets.org does with its banning and "pruning" policies.
I welcome ACommoner and whoever else wants to show up at Poets.net.
Jennifer
If you had your text "pruned," feel free to replicate it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
