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
|