Peter:
>There is (or can be) the connection
>between the poet, her/his uttering the poem and an audience; also the
>possibility of an integration between writing and the world around at
>the time (thinking "Lunch Poems").
I'm probably shifting sideways a bit from your main direction here,
but I'm remembering when I started publishing in the late 60s.
Granted it was in a small city (Dublin), but it made sense to go
around to poets we knew, and ask if they'd got anything new that they
liked. Then we'd bring out a small edition - 100 copies, more or less
- and they'd move.
There was a great feel, for poets, readers, publisher, to that sense
of 'connection' (to use your word) and immediacy. A good positive
feedback loop. It's hard to find that these days. Small hard-copy
magazines with quick turn-around and a committed readership, like
(Tony Frazer's) Shearsman, or (Nate Dorward's) The Gig van give some
of that feel, but hardcopy costs when there's an ocean impeding. I
see Tony's sticking the magazine up on his website now
(http://www.shearsman.com/), so that solves more problems. Webzines,
like (David's) Chide's Alphabet or (Alison Croggon's) Masthead are
other routes.
But why is there such an apparent sense of disconnect now? Why aren't
more editors following this route, giving poets a sense of immediate
connectedness with an audience. We need a lot more doing this, and
doing it well, than those I've mentioned. Does all the energy go into
the poetry and not enough into getting it to readers? We have
technologies, so why aren't we using them better. (Take that as a
sketchy 'we'.)
This is scattered - don't I know it - but just trying to start a hare
I've had my eye on . . .
Best,
T
--
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.soundeye.org/trevorjoyce
|