 |
 |
No, I wasn't. I genuinely don't understand it. It was badly constructed. What is it specifically referring to in the comment I made? I can't answer if it is not clear, can I? On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:42:45 -0400, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Sorry to hear that. Unless you're making a >punctuation pun. In which case I'm sorry to hear that. > >At 02:22 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: >>I don't understand your question, Mark? >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:54:47 -0400, Mark Weiss >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >Let's, for argument's sake, say that they are. >> >What other possibility would you envision? Do you >> >think the hands-on editor should in all cases be governed by the >>reviewers? >> > >> >At 01:45 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: >> >>If the board is, as you say, for prestige only, then Elizabeth James, >>who >> >>is on this board, shouldn’t have said in an earlier post here that they >> >>would do peer-reviewing also. So any misunderstanding is due to her >> >>input in this matter. >> >> >> >>Of course, I’m not saying a journal shouldn’t have an angle or biases, >> >>to credit me with that is building a straw man for me. My concern is >> >>that the journal may become elitist and exclusive, acting as a sort of >> >>arbiter of innovative poetic taste, in the same way that Poetry >>Review >> >>in the UK is an arbiter of taste for mainstream poetry. >> >> >> >>But I think the overriding issue is to find out if the editorial board >>will, >> >>indeed, be doing the peer-reviewing or not. I can’t see Elizabeth’s >> >>Freudian slip being insignificant, however. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:16:57 -0400, Mark Weiss >> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Let's be real for a moment. All academic fields >> >> >are so small that only neophytes don't know most >> >> >of the players. I'm a non-academic, but I was >> >> >able to identify immediately two of the three >> >> >anonymous readers of my Cuban anthology >> >> >manuscript. It's also not unheard of for a member >> >> >of a peer-review committee to tell a friend or >> >> >student that he's on the committee and this would be a good time >>to >> >>submit. >> >> > >> >> >That said, contributing editors aren't a >> >> >peer-review committee. Their function is to lend >> >> >prestige by simply being listed (and many never >> >> >do anything beyond that for the publication) and >> >> >to keep their ears out for what they think is >> >> >interesting work, tho they are never the only >> >> >source the actual editors rely on. >> >> > >> >> >You seem to expect a degree of objectivity that >> >> >humans are rarely capable of. I'm not convinced >> >> >that it's even desirable in a journal. This one >> >> >will develop its own character. Let's see what that is before we >>jump >> >>on it. >> >> > >> >> >Mark >> >> > >> >> >At 12:09 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: >> >> >>My guess is that the honorifics are there on purpose. They are >> >>making a >> >> >>statement. They may be removed now that critical attention has >> >>been >> >> >>brought to them. But it's the lack of anonymity of the peer- review >> >>board >> >> >>that concerns me. Robert should have decided what was more >> >> >>important: the honorifics or the sanctity of the peer-review >>process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:14:30 -0400, Mark Weiss >> >> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Black Mountain was hardly a formally organized >> >> >> >institution, particularly in its last few years, >> >> >> >when Olson was called in to oversee its demise. >> >> >> >There were at that point about a hundred >> >> >> >students. But it's the Black Mountain College we >> >> >> >remember as poets. Even in its rum days it >> >> >> >neither sought nor received accreditation. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I'm acutely aware of the impact of the >> >> >> >academicization of poetry in the US. It's been an >> >> >> >unmitigated disaster. But that wasn't caused by >> >> >> >the existence of academic journals. Let's se what they turn >>out. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >The inclusion of titles in the board list is a >> >> >> >bit comic opera, but let's blame it on a >> >> >> >beginner's mis-step. We should wish the >> >> >> >enterprise well, and maybe in that spirit let the >> >> >> >editor know that he should drop the honorifics. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Mark >> >> >> > >> >> >> >At 10:58 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote: >> >> >> >>One of the big dangers is definitely the codification of >>practice, >> >>and >> >> >> >>I am with Jeff on this. This has happened to some extent >> >>with 'avant >> >> >> >>garde' poetry in the States and it has certainly happened to >>art >> >>here >> >> >> >>in the art colleges - they do not set good examples. Once the >> >> >>products >> >> >> >>of creativity get into that loop it is very difficult for them to >> >> >> >>disentangle. We all want good teachers and good teaching >>but >> >>all too >> >> >> >>often good teachers and good teaching get lost in the >>systems >> >>and >> >> >> >>bureaucracies with their other demands and agendas. The >>need >> >>to >> >> >>get a >> >> >> >>'qualification' or certain letters after your name has in the >>past >> >>not >> >> >> >>been the same as the need to create originally. You need >> >>freedom >> >> >>and >> >> >> >>focus. At times this has been given by creative people living >>and >> >> >> >>working together - the typical artistic group or milieu or >> >>movement. >> >> >> >>And sometimes of course in glorious isolation from any such >> >>thing. >> >> >> >>Cases of such things coming from formally organised higher >>ed >> >> >> >>institutions are rare - Black Mountain would be one of those >> >>rarities. >> >> >> >>I'm not being romantic about this, I think I am being realistic. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Individuals, such as Robert Sheppard or whoever, are able to >> >>fight >> >> >> >>against codification, but systems and organisations cannot. >>Or at >> >> >> >>least, they cannot within the context of modern capitalist >>society. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Tim A. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On 22 Oct 2009, at 15:01, Jeffrey Side wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>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 >> > >> >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