news, and then po-biz thoughts
i am laughing now because i came to post, saw my last post almost a month ago, and after reading it i have to scratch my head. Why? Well, the poem that I thought was a work in progress, well, i guess it is done. i completely forgot about posting the poem Necropolis here and now the poem has been accepted here for my first national publication.
I am extremely excited and proud to have my debut to the poetry world coming out in such a good magazine. And I am extremely surprised that I sent the poem out once and it was accepted for publication! I was brought back down from my high by C. Dale Young's New England Review--standard rejection today, boo dat.
There is a lot of depressing stuff written about the glut of MFAs and how wrong that there are so many programs and graduates there are now. I was thinking today, and voicing to Lynn, that one of the things that is annoying is the older, "established poets" with their two or three books of poems out that complain about the numbers. Those who went out and got their MFAs when there were fewer programs and deductively it would have been more selective. But even then, you think they would have to realize how subjective their own talents are. To themselves, and to the contemporary scene.
I've been reading lots of blogs, lots of artilces, etc., from people with different aesthetics and the one thing they agree on is that MFAs are the problem. After that the second problem is the "other aesthetics" (for country folk like me, read: people who don't write like author of respective pieces).
The biggest problems out there are, from the prospective of an editor and younger poet, are editors and their minions--other MFAers who read the slush piles--or just editors who want names, or journals that are simply not as friendly as we would like to believe. There are many points that I'd like to elaborate on, and hopefully I can clarify a few here. 1. Sameness. Whether it is publishing a name poet or someone who fits a particular aesthetic, this is one of the biggest problem. I saw many poems go rejected and unfought for because there was a lack of name recognition or because the poems were just not the kind of aesthetic our board of readers liked. Oh this poem is so traditional, look at the rhyme, or the fact that it doesn't rely wholly on metaphor or use "weird" vocabulary. We can't have a poem like that. Though I don't always find this true from journal to journal, it seems that a majority of places SEEM to apply to this theory if they don't at least openly state it. Many journals can be found to have a statement that says, "read the journal if you want to know what we publish," something with that gist. There are a couple of reasons this is done. To detract old ladies and fifteen-year-old boys who write like Maya Angelou greeting cards from submitting. And also to try and gain readership, some cash, because most journals don't roll in their own money. Which leads to a siamese point of sameness.
Sameness as in THE SAME POETS. One of the problems is that poets that are old and have twenty books, that are they young poets' goddesses and gods, are still publishing the same poems and the same kinds of poems they were thirty or forty years ago. I don't blame the old poets. We don't make money and we don't get famous outside of the poetry world. But I feel like younger poets get the shaft, younger genius (and genius potential) goes unnoticed with standard rejections while we cater and float above the toes of those whose names say National Book Award or Pulitzer or Lenore Marshall or Ruth Lilly. Writers don't retire, and that is a problem. I don't want to suggest they quit writing, but maybe they should quit publishing, go into a Jack Gilbert hibernation and work on their craft. Or better yet, instead of teaching MFAers to write like them (which is a big claim old writers have said, that bloggers point to to blame for the mediocre state of poems in the world, besides blaming David Lehman and his annual big name editor friend), these old timers should better teach students. Not to write like them, but to study poetry's heritage and then to write like they want to write. But nope, the students in MFA programs can see the aesthetics of their professors if they are not explicity told what poet professor likes.
This is bleeding into point 2. The fear or "the other". I had a professor that said "this is what I like" but she also was careful to say, that doesn't mean shit in the end because she is not the end all, be all of poetry. She encouraged us to write like we wanted. But most don't do that, and even when they do their own agendas (who can fault them for being human, or american) unconsciously point the "apprentice poet" to their own dark side with jedi/sith lord mind tricks. I was happy to read an article defending the narrative poets written by tony hoadland for POETRY this past March. In the essay he subtly puts associative poems on a lesser scale for their lack of depth. Though I agree with this for my own aesthetics, and I love the article and really like hoagland's work, it simply pinpoints what is wrong with American Poetics. The problem isn't just those of us just graduating from MFA programs or the money-hungry schools that continue to create new ones that are at fault for this sad mediocrity that metastisizes with each new day.
There is so much more to say, and much clearer ways to say such, but this is not a premeditated, well-crafted essay but something that just came out in the moment. I wanted to talk about some other points, but it is fireworks time. And I want another snack before I go. And yes, I know I write this all being 1. young 2. a recent MFAer 3. recently rejected from a respectable journal 4. in the lotion-thick humidty of Chicago in July and 5. During the 4th and Taste of Chicago when the crowds of people make me very angry to me amongst a bunch of other selfish people who can't pay attention to those arround them that may also be using the sidewalk, etc.
ps. not the best way to end, i know, but really, chew on what i've said if you got this far.
I am extremely excited and proud to have my debut to the poetry world coming out in such a good magazine. And I am extremely surprised that I sent the poem out once and it was accepted for publication! I was brought back down from my high by C. Dale Young's New England Review--standard rejection today, boo dat.
There is a lot of depressing stuff written about the glut of MFAs and how wrong that there are so many programs and graduates there are now. I was thinking today, and voicing to Lynn, that one of the things that is annoying is the older, "established poets" with their two or three books of poems out that complain about the numbers. Those who went out and got their MFAs when there were fewer programs and deductively it would have been more selective. But even then, you think they would have to realize how subjective their own talents are. To themselves, and to the contemporary scene.
I've been reading lots of blogs, lots of artilces, etc., from people with different aesthetics and the one thing they agree on is that MFAs are the problem. After that the second problem is the "other aesthetics" (for country folk like me, read: people who don't write like author of respective pieces).
The biggest problems out there are, from the prospective of an editor and younger poet, are editors and their minions--other MFAers who read the slush piles--or just editors who want names, or journals that are simply not as friendly as we would like to believe. There are many points that I'd like to elaborate on, and hopefully I can clarify a few here. 1. Sameness. Whether it is publishing a name poet or someone who fits a particular aesthetic, this is one of the biggest problem. I saw many poems go rejected and unfought for because there was a lack of name recognition or because the poems were just not the kind of aesthetic our board of readers liked. Oh this poem is so traditional, look at the rhyme, or the fact that it doesn't rely wholly on metaphor or use "weird" vocabulary. We can't have a poem like that. Though I don't always find this true from journal to journal, it seems that a majority of places SEEM to apply to this theory if they don't at least openly state it. Many journals can be found to have a statement that says, "read the journal if you want to know what we publish," something with that gist. There are a couple of reasons this is done. To detract old ladies and fifteen-year-old boys who write like Maya Angelou greeting cards from submitting. And also to try and gain readership, some cash, because most journals don't roll in their own money. Which leads to a siamese point of sameness.
Sameness as in THE SAME POETS. One of the problems is that poets that are old and have twenty books, that are they young poets' goddesses and gods, are still publishing the same poems and the same kinds of poems they were thirty or forty years ago. I don't blame the old poets. We don't make money and we don't get famous outside of the poetry world. But I feel like younger poets get the shaft, younger genius (and genius potential) goes unnoticed with standard rejections while we cater and float above the toes of those whose names say National Book Award or Pulitzer or Lenore Marshall or Ruth Lilly. Writers don't retire, and that is a problem. I don't want to suggest they quit writing, but maybe they should quit publishing, go into a Jack Gilbert hibernation and work on their craft. Or better yet, instead of teaching MFAers to write like them (which is a big claim old writers have said, that bloggers point to to blame for the mediocre state of poems in the world, besides blaming David Lehman and his annual big name editor friend), these old timers should better teach students. Not to write like them, but to study poetry's heritage and then to write like they want to write. But nope, the students in MFA programs can see the aesthetics of their professors if they are not explicity told what poet professor likes.
This is bleeding into point 2. The fear or "the other". I had a professor that said "this is what I like" but she also was careful to say, that doesn't mean shit in the end because she is not the end all, be all of poetry. She encouraged us to write like we wanted. But most don't do that, and even when they do their own agendas (who can fault them for being human, or american) unconsciously point the "apprentice poet" to their own dark side with jedi/sith lord mind tricks. I was happy to read an article defending the narrative poets written by tony hoadland for POETRY this past March. In the essay he subtly puts associative poems on a lesser scale for their lack of depth. Though I agree with this for my own aesthetics, and I love the article and really like hoagland's work, it simply pinpoints what is wrong with American Poetics. The problem isn't just those of us just graduating from MFA programs or the money-hungry schools that continue to create new ones that are at fault for this sad mediocrity that metastisizes with each new day.
There is so much more to say, and much clearer ways to say such, but this is not a premeditated, well-crafted essay but something that just came out in the moment. I wanted to talk about some other points, but it is fireworks time. And I want another snack before I go. And yes, I know I write this all being 1. young 2. a recent MFAer 3. recently rejected from a respectable journal 4. in the lotion-thick humidty of Chicago in July and 5. During the 4th and Taste of Chicago when the crowds of people make me very angry to me amongst a bunch of other selfish people who can't pay attention to those arround them that may also be using the sidewalk, etc.
ps. not the best way to end, i know, but really, chew on what i've said if you got this far.