William Logan, in late 2006, posted on PoetryFoundation.org his viewpoints on the state of poetry. One passage has caught my eye:
Poets who write for awards are idiots. Poets who want awards are idiots. Look at the Pulitzers from the thirties: Conrad Aiken, Robert Frost, George Dillon, Archibald MacLeish, Robert Hillyer, Audrey Wurdemann, Robert P. Tristram Coffin, Robert Frost (again), Marya Zaturenska, John Gould Fletcher. One poet of the first rank, two or three of the third, and then oblivion. You don’t see Pound or Eliot or Stevens or Moore or Williams. If you think the poets awarded the prize in the nineties will fair better, think again.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t accept awards. It’s rude not to accept something people give you. Perhaps every award should be replaced with a saguaro cactus.
The rest of Logan's post is also enlightening.
His concludes his post with this emotional outburst:
My last words on poetry:
I don’t. I don’t! I don’t hate it! I don’t hate it!
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Thread: Opposing Viewpoints
With the first amendment comes significant responsibility, which (in my opinion) includes offering opposing viewpoints on any related topic.
Poets.net may be one of the few writing forums that offers this option.
My feeling: if we cannot discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of the literary academy, then the academy becomes a caricature of itself, and literature itself suffers.
So far, only one side has been represented, which suggests that some self-censorship has been imposed.
Poets.net readers would like to read opposing viewpoints on any literary topic discussed on this forum. You may do this anonymously in the comment section, and I will elevate the top two or three to post status.
Admin
Poets.net may be one of the few writing forums that offers this option.
My feeling: if we cannot discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of the literary academy, then the academy becomes a caricature of itself, and literature itself suffers.
So far, only one side has been represented, which suggests that some self-censorship has been imposed.
Poets.net readers would like to read opposing viewpoints on any literary topic discussed on this forum. You may do this anonymously in the comment section, and I will elevate the top two or three to post status.
Admin
Thread: What is Libel and Slander? What is the Difference Between the Two Terms?
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.
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.
Friday, May 2, 2008
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.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
