Tim Allen: "We all seek validation of some sort. I seek validation from
people who I respect, who I validate as publishers in turn."
There's no avoiding it, I guess. In the document, talking about courses, it
says something like "Those who are successful, will try to publish their
poems in magazines which may lead on to book publication."
Which is not that different from how it's been for a long time, when no such
courses existed. Only that saying it like this makes the poem's publication
seem merely instrumental.
Probably like everyone else then, when I started sending poems to magazines
in the mid-Seventies, I was only thinking I wanted to see the poems
published and that seemed the most immediate way to do so.
It wasn't really a stepping stone to a book which would have seemed
impossibly far off. And as far as validation goes, yes I suppose having
editors of magazines you respect take anything is gratifying.
It says someone other than yourself thinks the poem has value, and it helps
that that someone doesn't know you from Adam or Eve.
I still like the idea that a poem is an end in itself and not a means to
some other thing. And so publishing a poem for the first time in a magazine
is still as exciting as it ever was. It's on its own and will have to fend
for itself, whether surrounded by prose (best of all) or by other poems.
On the rare occasions I've been asked for advice, I've suggested people send
off to magazines they like rather than think straight off about a book. But
if they're asking me for advice they're probably in a bad way.
Perhaps it's idiot advice now anyway, and I should say start your own
webzine and then reciprocally publish other webzine editors.
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Arts Council report on Contemporary Poetry
> On 27 May 2011, at 20:41, Jamie McKendrick wrote:
>
>> What I'm still mulling over is whether this report is an authoratitive
>> account of anything. I'm also deeply unconvinced that it reveals
>> anything about the "ever-present validation process that seems to be in
>> place with major poetry publishers" as David claims, and I'd still like
>> to know why thinks this. Another subsidiary question is whether the
>> criteria for publication are essentially different for "major
>> publishers" than they are for smaller ones.
>
> Jamie, yes, I've never been averse to chucking in a few expletives to
> make it plain what I think. Ha! Anyway, as to your point about it being
> an 'authoritative account of anything' or not, I don't really know what a
> really authoritative account would look like. As I said, this account
> seems to me to be typical and just what I'd expect. Like you, I don't
> envy the poor sods who's job it is to write this stuff, but it is about
> on the same level as my pity for the poor sods who cold call me from Asia
> asking if I've got debt problems. What the account portrays is not a real
> situation but a kind of bureaucratic wish list that relies for its
> 'facts' on a rather traditional series of notions about the ways the
> literary establishment works. Those workings might well be accurately
> described, or not, it doesn't really matter - what matters are the
> assumptions behind the thing with regard to 'validation'.
>
> We cannot escape validation of course. And validation works on many
> different levels, but the organs of validation can be deceptive. When I
> was only part of the poetry world as a private writer I used to think
> that publication would be the first stage of some magic validation
> process (and I think this is how most young writers see it) but later I
> got a shock when I realised that publication, particularly in a magazine
> or chapbook, was actually a pretend validation - because it was quite
> obvious that almost anything could get itself published if it tried hard
> enough and if it picked an organ of the like-minded etc. My friend the
> poet Norman Jope, who used to edit Memes, had a long standing joke about
> how it would be better to have phantom magazines that only took work from
> a poet for phantom publication - in other words give them that
> validation - without having to actually publish a real magazine. Then
> when the poet sent their next batch off to another 'validator' they would
> cite their validation in the previous 'validator' etc. Then the magic day
> would come when they had enough validations to send to a
> super-validator - the book publisher.
>
> We all seek validation of some sort. I seek validation from people who I
> respect, who I validate as publishers in turn. And yes, this requires me
> to seek publishers who might like what I do. This is a situation I
> cannot avoid or deny. But I want these organs of validation to be open
> and honest, with their judgement on what I do based on real, not phantom.
> criteria. And in my opinion the fact that someone has this or that degree
> or academic qualification is phantom criteria at its most basic. The
> phantom scenario above, with the pretend magazines, is at least an
> example of the processes of validation within the context of the work,
> the poetry, but when the processes of validation get joined at the hip
> with a set of academic structures and requirements then the thing gets
> corrupted. The result is homogeneity and stasis, or it will be.
>
> I realise I am treading a thin line here and opening myself to the usual
> accusation of being anti-academic etc. But this is not the case. I am
> talking about a relationship and the mechanics of that relationship. The
> 'relationship' is as vital as it is natural, but the 'mechanics' of it
> are something else. Nevertheless I await the usual flak.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim A.
|
