Yes, but this journal has set its bar higher, and should be judged
accordingly
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:13:22 -0400, Mark Weiss
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>All journals are collaborative to a degree, but I
>don't understand why any journal shoudn't be
>somewhat singleminded. There are certainly enough
>other journals around from which to learn about other viewpoints.
>
>The best journal I know of is Origenes, which
>Jose Lezama Lima edited from 1944 to 1956. One
>can sit down and read the seven volumes of the
>reprint cover to cover with unflagging interest.
>It's an extension of Lezama's personality and
>poetry. It made a lot of other people angry, and
>created one of the most powerful movements in
>Latin American literature and thought. Was that a bad thing?
>
>Mark
>
>At 07:58 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>>I don’t think the journal will tell us how poetry should be written, but
>>the implication for me is that because Robert is somewhat fixated on
>>poetics as an aesthetic act in itself (or so it seems) then his
influence
>>could create a sensibility for the journal that reflects this. I’m not
>>saying this is inevitable, but it could be the case if not checked. This
is
>>why I am questioning the peer-review arrangements of the journal,
as I
>>understand them from what Elizabeth James has said.
>>
>>Robert has said, ‘Poetics only makes sense if your sense of art,
artifice,
>>artificer, is concentrated on the act of making, rather than self-
>>expression’ (See his ‘The Necessity of Poetics’). Whilst I don’t
advocate
>>self-expression as something to be desired (at least if taken at face
>>value) nor do I see the necessity for Robert’s insistence that poetics
>>can only have significance if it revolves around the “act of making”.
>>
>>The consequences of this approach would be that a particular work’s
>>reception becomes secondary to the means of its production; where,
in
>>effect, the apologia for the work’s production becomes more
important
>>than the work itself, or its affects on readers. In such a situation, the
>>apologia becomes the artefact and the poem almost the explanation
for
>>it.
>>
>>Of course such a theory should have a voice in the journal, but not
the
>>presiding one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:44:17 -0700, Sean Bonney
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeffrey, could you please give some evidence regarding
your 'feeling'
>>that the journal is going to tell us how poetry should be written? I've
>>seen the first issue (and I'm very curious as to whether you have),
and
>>none of the articles seem to me to be making any claims as to how
>>poetry 'should' be written.
>> >
>> >http://abandonedbuildings.blogspot.com/
>> >
>> >--- On Thu, 22/10/09, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> >From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
>> >Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry launch at
>>Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009)
>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>> >Date: Thursday, 22 October, 2009, 3:01 PM
>> >
>> >Sean, I'm not against academic journals if they are about the
study of
>> >poetry rather than concentrating on how it should be written etc.
And
>>I
>> >get the feeling that this journal may lead to this, having read
some of
>> >Robert’s theories on practice. Only time will tell, however.
>> >
>> >I'm all for peer-review, but not when used for innovative writing
>>theory,
>> >the two seem almost an oxymoron. Would the various poetic
>> >manifestos of the early part of the 20th century passed a peer-
review
>> >process? I doubt it.
>> >
>> >Also, if the editorial board for the journal are also the peer-
reviewers
>> >then is not a healthy state of affairs for any journal. If the board
must
>> >do the reviewing then it is a mistake for them to be named
publicly.
>> >Peer-review is all about anonymity.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:01:20 -0700, Sean Bonney
>> ><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Jeff / would you rather academics didn't talk about 'innovative'
>>poetry?
>> >its not as if the appearance of the journal means that poetry is
>> >suddenly locked up in the university and no-one else can talk
about it.
>> >maybe, instead, it can work alongside non-academic activities -
>> >Openned, The Other Room and suchlike. I think the kneejerk
dismissal
>> >of universities going on round here is rather reactionary, as if it
was
>> >still the 1950s and universities were still strictly for the middle and
>> >upper classes, which is no longer the case, and hasn't been for a
long
>> >time (and, Jeff, on your part rather hypocritical, seeing as only a
few
>> >weeks ago you were trying to get us all to read your thesis, and
>>telling
>> >us how a chapter of it was about to be published in a peer
reviewed
>> >journal etc).
>> >>
>> >>its also rather alarming to see people lining up to slag off a
>>magazine
>> >they haven't even seen yet. maybe its going to be great. give it a
>> >chance, yeh?
>> >>
>> >>Sean
>> >>
>> >>http://abandonedbuildings.blogspot.com/
>> >>
>> >>--- On Wed, 21/10/09, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>> >>
>> >>From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry launch
at
>> >Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009)
>> >>To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>Date: Wednesday, 21 October, 2009, 7:22 PM
>> >>
>> >>Geraldine, I don’t feel threatened personally as I do not
>>align
>> >myself to
>> >>any particular poetic school. But I see the â
€œacadamisationâ
>>€� of
>> >poetry as
>> >>largely unfavourable to its larger practice and dissemination
without
>> >the
>> >>academy. I see poetry as a cottage industry, not as a
corporation.
>>We
>> >>have seen how once an art form is passed over to the academy,
its
>> >>vitality is weakened.
>> >>
>> >>Besides, I think that academic study of “writing
practiceâ
>>€� as
>> >opposed
>> >>to merely studying the reception of poetry is too prescriptive an
>> >>approach to poetic composition. Poets should be allowed to
choose
>> >how
>> >>they approach composition, without concerning themselves about
>> >>having to formulate a contrived rationale to explain how they do
>>it.ÂÂ
>> >>This is an approach I don’t think Robert or Scott would
find
>> >appealing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:33:23 +0100, Geraldine Monk
>> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Jeffrey,
>> >>>You seem aggressively negative and confrontational about this
>> >>journal. Do you feel it threatens you personally because that
is
>>how
>> >>your constant anxieties are coming across.ÂÂ
>> >>>
>> >>>Like Alison says (and Mark echoes here) who wants a beige
journal
>> >or
>> >>even worse taupe - yuk!ÂÂ
>> >>>
>> >>>G.
>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: Jeffrey Side
>> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:41 PM
>> >>> Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry
>>launch
>> >at
>> >>Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I think this journal, though, is setting out to be less
impartial
>>and
>> >>more
>> >>> catholic. If this is not the case, then fair enough, but it
should
>> >come
>> >>> clean about it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:33:23 -0400, Mark Weiss
>> >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Does anybody really want an impartial journal? It's not a
>>trial by
>> >>> >jury--any journal worth its salt casts a wide net but
develops
>>a
>> >>> personality.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >At 11:29 AM 10/21/2009, you wrote:
>> >>> >>Quote: "It's usually not a list of peer-reviewers, but of
>> >advisors
>> >>who
>> >>> >>funnel the work of others to the journal."
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>Mark, that is even more of a concern, as impartiality
will be
>> >>> threatened.
>> >>> >>So, given this funnelling by these advisors who are also
the
>> >peer-
>> >>> >>reviewers, how much credibility can we now give this
>>venture?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>This could lead to yet another clique forming within the
non-
>> >>> mainstream
>> >>> >>arena.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:23:24 -0400, Mark Weiss
>> >>> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >It's usually not a list of peer-reviewers, but of
advisors
>>who
>> >>funnel
>> >>> >> >the work of others to the journal.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >At 11:14 AM 10/21/2009, you wrote:
>> >>> >> >>When you say:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>"The people on the editorial board by the way are
>>basically
>> >>there
>> >>> as
>> >>> >> >>peer-reviewers"
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>This means that anonymity will be taken out of the
>>peer-
>> >>review
>> >>> >>process-
>> >>> >> >>-this can't be a good thing surely? For peer review to
>>work
>> >>> properly
>> >>> >>one
>> >>> >> >>shouldn't know who is likely to be vetting their
>> >contributions.
>> >>It
>> >>> could
>> >>> >> >>lead to people being unwilling to submit work, which
>>would
>> >>> >>detrimental
>> >>> >> >>to the aims of the journal.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:31:39 +0100, Elizabeth
James
>> >>> >> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >Quite. Consider the possibility that academic
>>discourse
>> >>might
>> >>> >>actually
>> >>> >> >>be as
>> >>> >> >> >interesting and rewarding, intellectually /
creatively,
>>as
>> >>poetry
>> >>> >>(reading
>> >>> >> >> >or writing); and then getting to be allowed to
apply
>>that
>> >>mind,
>> >>> in
>> >>> >>work
>> >>> >> >> >time, to the exciting, difficult and intelligent
poetry
>>you
>> >>already
>> >>> >>love in
>> >>> >> >> >the evenings ... To me it looks like a coup, rather
>>than a
>> >>> defence.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >The proclaimed inclusion of 'poetics' will
complicate
>>that
>> >>> argument,
>> >>> >> >> >admittedly.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >The people on the editorial board by the way are
>> >basically
>> >>> there as
>> >>> >> >> >peer-reviewers, and do'nt run the journal. Well
that's
>> >how it
>> >>is
>> >>> for
>> >>> >>me
>> >>> >> >> >anyway. I am proud to be among them, furry
hoodies
>> >and
>> >>Latin
>> >>> >>graces
>> >>> >> >> >notwithstanding ...
>> >>> >> >> >e
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >----- Original Message -----
>> >>> >> >> >From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >Gosh. That seems fairly sweeping. What if, rather
>>than
>> >>> stemming
>> >>> >>from
>> >>> >> >> >"insecurity", it's simply that it's interesting and
>> >stimulating
>> >>to
>> >>> >> >> >think in a disciplined way about practice? (Sorry,
>> >praxis...) I
>> >>> >> >> >certainly find such things interesting to read. And
I
>>just
>> >>don't
>> >>> get
>> >>> >> >> >this idea that journals of whatever stripe ought
to be
>> >wholly
>> >>> >>without
>> >>> >> >> >agendas, since I don't understand how that
would be
>>at
>> >all
>> >>> >>desirable
>> >>> >> >> >or interesting - surely it would just mean beige all
>> >round? I
>> >>And
>> >>> >> >> >don't we all, as Borges pointed out, make our own
>> >canons?
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >xA
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban
>>Poetry
>> >>> (University
>> >>> >> >of California Press).
>> >>> >> >Forthcoming in November 2009.
>> >>> >> >http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban
Poetry
>> >>(University
>> >>> >of California Press).
>> >>> >Forthcoming in November 2009.
>> >>> >http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>---------------------------------------------
>> ---------------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> >>> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.24/2449 -
Release
>> >Date:
>> >>10/20/09 18:42:00
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Send instant messages to your online friends
>> >http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>> >
>
>Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban
>Poetry (University of California Press).
>Forthcoming in November 2009.
>http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
|