I'd have to concede Tim's point: "I know that if I were trawling for an
anthology called 'An Anthology of Poems that I think are Bloody
Good'...there would be some names in there of people I have only read on the
internet, whether they have got books out there somewhere or not", as I've
also come across poems I greatly like on the internet by poets I didn't know
before. But, for what we're talking about, his final proviso is worth
pausing over. In all the cases I can think of, as it happens, the poems I've
liked have also been published in books or are by poets who have published
books. Clearly that doesn't have to be the case, but I'm still sure - at the
present time - if I were compiling an anthology of a generation of
contemporary poets I wouldn't feel in the least obliged to devote time to
searching out poets from the internet.
Jeffrey, you "don't see the point of anthologies in general" because they
"have an agenda of some sort". But you'd want an anthology to have some kind
of agenda surely, or else what would be the point? Even if the agenda were
to gain a wider readership "for perceived 'neglected' poets", and those
poets were worth reading, the activity would deserve some gratitude. It's
hard work, as I can testify from my only foray into the field, and it's
often rewarded by the most nit-picking of objections, or else the usual:
"One of the most shameful omissions in this anthology is the poetry of X" -
X being a poet you happen to have read quite carefully and decided was of
precious little value. In an earlier thread, I think you offered a similarly
reductive view of anthology-making, which Mark referred to as "too easy".
You weren't really mistaken, though, to take what I said earlier as "as a
criticism of self-publishing as a practice in general". My reference to
self-publishing was "general" but not meant as universal. I'm well aware of
a number of exceptions.
And I think at least some of the reasons you give for why poets
self-publish make sense. I don't believe that mainstream publishers are as
wedded to "commercial considerations" as you judge them to be - quite a few,
probably all of them, are willing to publish some poets they know will make
little or no profits for them because they have a high regard for the work.
(Maybe that could go down as long-term or visionary commercialism!) Nor do I
believe that "networking" with publishers is going to sway the decision. But
you're right if you're saying that the doors are pretty tight shut in some
of the major poetry publishers, where they are now refusing to read
unsolicited manuscripts. The effect of this is going to mean, increasingly,
a reliance on the recommendation of valued poets, usually those who teach on
creative writing courses. Heaven help the loners or the terminally detached
who happen to write good poems.
(Pace Robin, I'm pretty sure a present-day Dickinson wouldn't be writing a
blog, telling her "name the livelong day / To an admiring Bog" but what
would her chances of being published be? I doubt thaey'd be much better than
then.)
And I can also see the attractions of freedom to publish something in
exactly the form you want it. Jennifer Moxley in an interview in Jacket 37
speaks of a similar decision: "I called up Lee Ann Brown and asked if I
could “use” Tender Buttons to publish my book. I’d pay for it, design it,
everything. She agreed and I set about learning Quark." It's a
labour-intensive decision, and one that might not have turned out as well as
it did, but there's integrity in it.
Jamie
“Jeffrey, when you say "I see it as no more difficult to compile an
anthology from webzine poetry as it is from print magazine poetry." I may be
missing your point but I can't imagine anyone compiling an anthology, at
least a commercial one, out of either.”
Jamie, you may be right about the commercial aspects of such an anthology.
Besides, I don’t see the point of anthologies in general. Each one (or most,
at any rate) seems to have an agenda of some sort; either as an attempt at
canon formation for perceived “neglected” poets, or as a marketing exercise.
“I've noticed a lot more reciprocal publication between webzine-poetry
editors than in the non-virtual world.”
I expect this goes on in the non-virtual world, also. It would be
astonishing if it didn’t. As to its frequency on the Internet, that may be
just your perception given that it is easier to find there than having to
purchase and trawl through many print magazines to witness it.
“As for self-publication I don't think the respectability of poets matters
at all. If the poetry's good (as with Ungaretti's self-published first book
Porto Sepolto) it's likely to find a readership.”
True, but your criticism of the Internet was that there were few gatekeepers
to maintain a quality threshold, hence the frequency of self-published
material. I was mistaken, but I took this as a criticism of self-publishing
as a practice in general.
I imagine most poets self-publish because the commercial considerations
dominating the mainstream publishing business (and increasingly the less
mainstream ones) preclude such poets from being published by them either for
commercial reasons (they will not sell well) or lack of personal contact
with the editors of these publishing houses (they have not networked
successfully). In such circumstances, some poets have no choice but to
self-publish. Still others self-publish for ideological reasons, or because
they like the freedom it offers. There can be many reasons why poets
self-publish, not all of them to do with commercial rejection, though this
may be the most common motivation.
Original Message
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Northern Irish Poets?
There is, actually, a very important issue within all this. The
changes in the dynamic (or lack of) of poetry publishing resulting
from the internet are many, and they are going to affect both the
possible ways in which print anthologies are produced and how those
selections are perceived, like it or not. I know that if I were
trawling for an anthology called 'An Anthology of Poems that I think
are Bloody Good' (any takers you publishers out there?) there would be
some names in there of people I have only read on the internet,
weather they have got books out there somewhere or not - and I am not
even a good example for this because I'd much prefer to read things in
books. The internet has complicated things no end. While I am a lot
more skeptical of it than Jeffrey with regard to 'quality' I have to
agree with him that as things are now there are an increasing number
of poets who look to the internet mags as their initial outlet.
Tim A.
On 27 Mar 2010, at 18:52, Jamie McKendrick wrote:
> Jeffrey,
> I don't want to argue about this anthology which so far I've not
> properly read, but I'm not convinced by your statement:
> "Ideally, poets should be drawn from the Internet, also. Not to do so
> seems remiss."
> I wouldn't discount the possibility that the editor is aware of the
> internet (as many of the poets in the anthology can be found there) but
> at least if I were assembling an anthology of contemporary poets, it's
> probably the last place I'd look. Just consider the work load! You could
> spend years navigating from one site to another and find little reward.
> Bad enough having to read all those books, but at least in those cases
> someone other than the author has considered it worth the risk of
> publishing it.
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Northern Irish Poets?
>
>
> "Which would seem a very reasonable way of assembling an anthology, or do
> you disagree?"
>
> Jamie, it is reasonable, though exclusive given the options available.
> Ideally, poets should be drawn from the Internet, also. Not to do so
> seems remiss. Roddy did, though, include poets who had not published
> books. He says:
>
> "The book was open to unpublished poets too, and indeed, seven unsigned
> poets were included in the line-up. Since making my list (drafted in
> 2007, please note), those poets have all been signed up by either
> Bloodaxe, Salt or Seren."
>
> He doesn’t mention, though, how he heard of these poets. I presume from
> seeing their poems in printed little magazines, or from personal contact
> (and by the latter I am not inferring nepotism, by the way). I doubt from
> the Internet.
|
