[The following essay is written for poets who would publish (and contest administrators and publishers as well) that we all have the target clearly in mind: poetry to be heard and to be read by those seeking and relishing successful vicarious experience through one of the language arts, poetry.]
Recently, I did a vanity search for a woman I've befriended in the past and wanted to check up on as I admire her still and her persistence at living life on her terms as she is both able and capable. The result of this search was learning that Garrison Keillor had published on two separate occasions two of her poems.
Well, to have had the Minnesota Bard read your poems in his whimsical sonority is certain fame. I note that following his readings and publication of these poems they were both picked up by food blogs and published anew to the world.
It's mind boggling to realize that we still do publish poetry, even if it's just not selling except to help market food recipes (largely assuming the food bloggers paid a stipend for a poem's use). This is not to say I do not appreciate the blog publications and the Writer's Almanac dosage of poetry pre-read and selected by the Bard's staff person (I hear there is one who does this). I also believe the two poems definitely belong on the Writer's Almanac and I salute my friend for having won publication there (a gatekeeper of the poetry art has a weighty job for which I hope he or she is compensated copiously and ironically).
My friend has worked at seeing her poems otherwise published as magazine verse, which is admirable and praiseworthy. Based only on supposition and on one of her poems, I believe she has also submitted poetry to at least one competition with an annual prize in the thousands of dollars. This is is a much larger undertaking as the poems selected have to be so stunningly good and the collection of the poems so unified that the judge of the competition can not sidestep the "duty" to find this book a publisher. And on the scale of the Daisy Rifle that even if the collection is itself not to be awarded the prize (would that be for political reasons?) the judge of the contest finds the collection a publisher. The Poetry Foundation appears to have a concern for publication of efforts of note which makes the process redeemable for all of us who enter (even those of us who are short of being one's own editor).
One wonders if contests of note actually have this regard for quality collections and poems when they process the submissions. Do they, as we assume truly keep the authorship blind until after the point of selection of thee finalist. Some mask the violation of the principle of the blind entry by deciding multiple award recipients once the poet's are unmasked. The reasons for this are not legend. A prize of note builds its reputation on marketability. Plus, other factors beyond the control of the entrant are at work. I believe, as I believe you do, that marketability and objective judgement are mutually beneficial to the publisher of poetry. It's the reality of the marketplace. So read the contest rules with eyes to see what the task really is and how you can affect the outcome, but accept you do not control it, except by the quality of your submitted work. Hopefully, you will stay in the vineyard working the winepresses and bottlers.
Recently, I read the historical rendition of the Yale Younger Poets contest series. The insider's view of how the "winners" came to be is a real page turner for us who have labored in the optimistic pursuit of meritorious publication of our poems and collections. It should be noted by all entrants and contest advertisements as well that if a submission is not in fact a unified collection of superbly crafted poetry, it will not be further agonized over by the readers for the contest. I say this because a prize of note should require this as the base line for consideration. (Don't we love it when the announcement of the winner is accompanied by an apology to the losers: "The quality of the work of entrants was such that the selection of the winner was arduous and edifying for me as the judge." This makes the payment of the entry fee [read reader's fee] more tolerable the next time we enter.)
Consequencially, I urge poets before making submissions to have at least one other who has skill and experience become a reader with not only critical skills but the willingness to foster change and growth in the quality of results for submission. Writing programs offer this, but I for one do not think academia should be the situs of our art and craft (except that it should not be prohibited from being a situs).
We have to be somewhere on the timeline of fruition with our poetry. Early efforts can show promise and even a new direction but it's not unusual for the poems without promise to actually embrace a new direction in poetry (especially if they seem out of control) and for poems with promise to be mirrors of the mature work of established poets (they meet our expectations for modern verse).
Imitation and borrowing is not to be scorned (attribution in text or otherwise noted of our borrowings is due though, in all honesty, which is not to say that subtlety in giving obeisance is not appreciated). I also believe that the allusions whether historical or literary should be handled with panache, either by obvious mistaken representation by a persona in a poem (a la George W. Bush) or with regard for capturing the truth as that truth is to be had. In some cases, truth is not to be purchased by any amount of study or regard for it; and so poets be careful in your wordchoice because readers of poetry are rightly not a forgiving class of persons, typically widely read and capable of doing the research on his or her own. Wouldn't it be a bit odd to hold our politicians to a higher standard of accuracy in allusion and reference than we do our poets?
I am an advocate of the school for genius being the person's own mind and imagination. That's the whole game in a nutshell. You could pay tens of thousands of dollars for a masters of fine arts and fall short of the mark. The integrity of the process though is in the creation of original work and products worthy of readers. The work must be respectful of readers and trustworthy of the integrity and intelligence of persons who should read our poetry. The pedantic and the obstreperous (think bombastic and ego-centric professor) may yet have a place in our poetics but rarely do we find their poetry readable unless they take on a persona in opposition to their public person persona. This is not to say that the persona in a poem speaking in first person can not irritate or irk us, but that had better be by design of the poet whose sense of dramatic and situational irony is not lacking.
Finally, to my fellow poets on the quest, I have some hard won advice to give in addition to what is offered above. Be wary of padding your submissions. A small collection of superb poems in a unified collection deserves publication. Be strong in your conceptualization of a collection (quantity is second to quality). Do not shun the humble undertaking. Do shun the grandiose which leaves itself open to that host of critiques that follows a too ambitious undertaking (unless you are Cervantes's Don Quixote, in which case, press on). Keep in front of you what comes next and deal with the problems in front of you. A poem with a problem is a jewel unshined. See the problem and the solution should follow (so sleep on it). Unvarnished truth too can be stunning especially in the vernacular (so be careful what you take a shine to).
Ultimately, you will have to weather the critics. At least make sure you are the first critic in that line of well-wishers who may take time to critique one's efforts. A mean spirited poetry critic may have incorrectly assessed our effort, but like one's mad aunt still value the truth in what he or she has to offer and trash the rest of verbiage. Oh yah, have a little lighthearted laugh when a poem is finished and has taken on a life of its own. It's why we should bother to write poetry.
Richard J. Hilber
No comments:
Post a Comment