Sherry Chandler

Confessions

Upon the occasion of W. S. Merwin’s being appointed U.S. Poet Laureate, the NY Review of Books posted a link to this article by Charles Simic, Confessions of a Poet Laurate. It was published in April of this year. He had some surprising things to say:

Over the years, I had read too many essays by literary critics and even poets, which proclaimed confidently that poetry is universally despised and read by practically no one in United States. I recall my literature students rolling their eyes when I asked them if they liked poetry, or my old high school friends becoming genuinely alarmed upon learning that I still did. Patriotic, sentimental and greeting card verse has always been tolerated, but the kind of stuff modern poets write allegedly offends every one of those “real Americans” Sarah Palin kept praising in the last election.

During the time I served as the poet laureate, however, I found this not to be true. In a country in which schools seem to teach less literature every year, where fewer people read books and ignorance reigns supreme regarding most issues, poetry is read and written more than ever. Anyone who doesn’t believe me ought to take a peek at what’s available on the web. Who are these people who seem determined to copy almost every poem ever written in the language? Where do they find the time to do it? No wonder we have such a large divorce rate in this country. I won’t even describe the thousands of blogs, the on-line poetry magazines, both serious ones and the ones where anyone can post a poem their eight-year daughter wrote about the death of her goldfish. People who kept after me with their constant emails and letters were part of that world. They wanted me to announce what I propose to do to make poetry even more popular in United States. Unlike my predecessors who had a lot of clever ideas, like having a poetry anthology next to the Gideon Bible in every motel room in America (Joseph Brodsky), or urging daily newspapers to print poems (Robert Pinsky), I felt things were just fine. As far as I could see, there was more poetry being read and written than at any time in our history.

The obvious next question is how much of it is any good? More than one would ever imagine

By the way, you’ll find a podcast of Katerina Stoykova-Klemer’s interview with Charles Simic and Leatha Kendrick here.

On a related note, Nic Sebastian has been doing a fine series of interviews with the leading lights in poetry blogging on the subject of Poets & Technology. I’ve quoted some of these interviews here previously.

This week is Dave Bonta’s turn. Dave is strongly in favor of poets posting poems to blogs. He has published his Personal Blogging for Writers: A Manifesto, which begins:

Thanks to weblogs and other modern content management systems, a poem, essay or story can now be written in the morning and published the same afternoon. Does this spell the end of polished writing? Not judging by some of the highly polished books I’ve read by active bloggers, many of them derived in whole or in part from blogged material.(1) On the contrary, I have seen people become better writers as a result of blogging, myself probably included. Writers have always done some of their best writing in a white heat of inspiration, and blogging can either aid or hinder this depending on the personality of the writer and his or her approach to blogging: it can just as easily be a tool for artistic exploration as an agent of distraction.

Many writers prefer to use blogs merely to share news of their publishing success elsewhere, and that’s fine. But I think those with a more exhibitionist streak are missing out on a great deal of fun, and poets in particular — who are almost invariably exhibitionists, let’s face it — are missing an unparalleled opportunity to connect with audiences they might never otherwise reach. But there’s a risk, too: that they will be so seduced by this new medium that they won’t want to go back to jostling for publication in snooty print magazines no one reads, and their professional reputations will suffer as a result.

In answer to Nic’s question, What do you dislike most about how other poets use technology?, Dave says:

I get frustrated with some poets’ reluctance to post drafts of their work to their blogs because they don’t want to ruin their chances of getting published elsewhere, but I can understand why they do so. My frustration is directed more toward the literary magazine editors who refuse to consider previously blogged work.

I don’t publish drafts and I have been reluctant to join some of the excellent online critiquing groups, such as The Waters, just because I don’t really want my drafts out there. (Added: This isn’t so much because of publication — though that’s part of it — but also because I am sometimes embarassingly bad. I think slowly, and it takes me a while sometimes to see the most egregious blunders.) But I’m old and conservative and I probably am missing out on an opportunity.

Added: Take the micropoetry, for example (see Twitter feed above). I started doing that in blatant imitation of Dave’s Morning Porch. But as I’ve done it over the last year or so, I find the discipline of putting something out there every day challenging. It makes me look around me. Some days I feel that it is as flatfooted as an elephant, but that will be the day somebody responds with cheers. So, I think, maybe I’m not always the best judge of my own work. There’s something to be learned from immediate feedback from a reader base. But a little 140-character taradiddle is non-threatening. Putting a whole poem out there is something different.

But you should read Dave’s postings of poetry at Via Negativa. His work is an argument for posting poetry. Also read the rest of this fine interview and take a look at the whole series.

Media and messages

Here’s an evocative statement from Ron Silliman. I found it at Very Like a Whale, where Silliman is answering 10 Questions on Poets & Technology, the question is “Do you use technology as an integral element of your poetry?”

Right now I’m at work on five poems or sections from Universe & four of these are being composed in notebooks. The fifth as I noted is being composed on funky input devices. Three of those notebooks use the Waterman pen, but the fourth bleeds too much. You could ask what the difference between the sections is, but in many ways the answer lies in those writing technologies. Using two different journals with the same pen will yield very different poems, or at least poems that feel different to me.

Silliman also says:

When I do one-week workshops, one of my primary tasks is to get workshop participants to recognize how much that “seems natural” to them is in fact the consequence of some choice, so one of the things I have them do is work differently than they did before. If they use a PC to write, then they must try something else. If they focus on the 8.5-by-11 page, then they need to focus elsewhere. I get back works written on napkins, even leaves.

I think I need to pay attention to this. I often write in a notebook but I’m quite capable of composing at the computer. Usually I only do the first draft in a notebook, but I am, I think, capable of revising on paper. I don’t like using laptops in workshops just because I find that people who do are focused on their machine and not on their environment. And I don’t like the tappity-tappity sounds. I am not a café writer; I like watching people too much. So I don’t carry a laptop around with me and my eyes are too old to be much interested in smaller devices.

What I don’t know is whether the medium changes the message, as it were. Do I write different poems with different pens and on different grades of paper? Do you?

Some interesting ideas, as always, from Mr. Silliman.

Here’s a question in answer to a question:

What if the Library of Congress gave everyone unlimited digital access to everything for, say, $20 per month? Or free even.

Another very readable interview on this subject. I suggest you read all of this one. I suggest you read the whole series.

Community

Over at Very Like a Whale, Amy King answers Ten Questions on Poets and Technology, with advice on using Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. She begins like this:

Technology offers a variety of platforms for disseminating one’s work. Some are difficult to master, but most are not. Poets who don’t want to spend tons of time convincing a handful of big-name publishers their work is worthwhile should master just a few platforms like blogs (I prefer WordPress.com) or writer-friendly DIY sites such as Red Room and She Writes, and even the self-publishing mediums now readily available like Lulu.

Women in particular might consider knuckling down and forego the fear of “going public” independently (i.e. no publisher to do your PR, which is rare anyway). We’ve been modest and quiet far too long. We need more women’s voices, styles and revelations in that literary landscape, from what I’ve seen.

And then this:

Poetry survives because it’s primarily about human connection and interaction as mediated by words and what that entails (the latter being a complex multitude I cannot possibly outline here). Technology is making it possible for us to get the word out, in a variety of formats and styles, to more people daily. Some of us plug away at proliferating poetry. I do. I’m invested in setting an example of someone who does not apologize for wanting others to engage with her through the poetic. Poetry is transformative, where culture can stagnate and water down to the lowest form and function, if you let it. So why not use that technology to spread the poetic? Technology is neutral; it’s what we do with it that’s going to make or break us, so to speak.

If you’re a poet looking for community, check out Big Tent Poetry

Big Tent Poetry aims to create a fun, inspiring, motivational and supportive community for poets at all levels of writing. In addition to a weekly writing “Prompt” and a weekly “Come One, Come All” gathering for poets to share their work, Big Tent Poetry provides writing challenges, revision activities, columns and reviews

One of the interesting features of this new site is a forum of blogging poets, the sideshow barkers, who will inlcude Robert Peak, James Brush, and Dave Bonta, among others. As Dave says:

[My ideal would be a] decentralized internet where we all have our own sites (whether blogs proper or sites on Tumblr, StatusNet, etc.), subscribe to each other’s feeds, and link and comment back and forth with the enthusiasm now reserved for Facebook and Twitter.

O.K., that day will probably never come. But Big Tent Poetry’s mode of operation definitely contributes to the dream of a decentralized social web. Carolee, Deb and Jill have made the wise decision not to try to line up a bunch of regular columnists, but instead get a bunch of us to agree to send along links whenever we write something poetry-related, and let them decide whether to feature it on the site. They have dedicated a whole third ring (the circus kind, not the Dantean kind) to collect such contributions, and I’m pleased and honored that they chose my piece about Poetry Reading Month as the second entry there. I like the idea of Via Negativa as sideshow and me as its barker. And I’m in good company — see the complete list of barkers on the site’s About page.

Illustrating another form of community, Poemeleon has released their collaborative issue, which explores various permutations of collaborating — poet with artist, poet with actress, poet with poet (with poet with poet), even reviewer with reviewer. the issue aslo includes two fine essays on collaboration by Martha Deed and Millie Niss and by Marilyn Taylor. Marilyn begins:

One of the most rewarding things about being a poet is, for many of us, the pure pleasure of discovering and getting to know other poets. Our relationships often have a way of blossoming into a remarkably supportive community– a flock of enthusiasts who find joy in talking poetry, reading poetry, arguing poetry, and sharing with one another the poetry we’ve written.

I’ve found, in fact, that if a poet hangs around long enough with kindred souls, chances are excellent that somebody, sometime, is going to suggest a poetry collaboration project. In other words, someone will decide that if two or more of us team up, pooling our talents and energies, the result will be something wonderful, publishable, and more than the sum of its parts.

That person will be wrong.

Well, maybe not entirely wrong. I admit to possessing a strong sense that the odds are stacked against the true success of most poetry collaborations—at least in terms of their real artistic merit, and the likelihood of their being read and appreciated by others.

Why do I come to such a grumpy, unsubstantiated conclusion?

Read the essay to find the answer to that question and also to find some examples of collaborations that Marilyn considers successful.

And, because poets are part of the community at large, I recommend you read Robin Kemp’s Dispatches from Saints & Sinners 2010: Part 1 The Oil Spill

Back in my hometown of New Orleans, I’m sitting at Rue de la Course at the corner of Carrollton and Oak, shaking off the late-night arrival and waking up to continued universal agitation over the oil spill in the Gulf. As a former CNN newswriter and environmental reporter for Gambit, I’m in the unhappy position of reading some of my poems, grounded in this city and its surrounding wetlands, through this new lens.

. . .

National coverage of this story has been spotty at best. The spill’s impact began to seep into CNBC’s consciousness yesterday—as a story on possible seafood price increases in New York—as if the question of what the spill means for all Americans were not one of benthic depth. We tend to think of North and South, East Coast and Gulf Coast, as universes apart, yet our lives are far more interdependent than regional allegiances would have us believe. The hundreds of thousands of dead baitfish I saw (and smelled) yesterday at low tide in Ocean Springs, MS have everything to do with Saints and Sinners, with our literature, with queer survival, with human survival. Our coast has been queered, and not in a good way. Some people don’t care whether we live or die. From the point of view of those who live and work in New Orleans and the Gulf South, who “we” are has spread its dark sheen across a far wider surface in recent weeks.

Kate Bernadette Benedict

Here’s what Kate Bernadette Benedict said about her ambitions as a poetry editor:

My ambition is to keep Umbrella’s standards high by publishing excellent poetry of an eclectic nature. I also feel that certain boilerplate styles hamper poetry’s power, so it’s also a key mission of mine to showcase poems that employ a fresh and ringing diction.

Kate is editor of Umbrella and, because I have had poems in that journal, her statement set me to shining up my gold star.

Kate is featured as interview # 9 in Nic Sebastian’s series, Ten Questions for Poetry Editors. When asked “How frequently do you get “exciting” submissions?” Kate made this encouraging response:

More frequently than I ever would have imagined! Each poem chosen excites in its own way. A poem scintillates when its umbrella idea marries perfectly to its execution … and when it moves me on a deep level.

I was surprised to learn that Kate serves as her own webmaster. I find Umbrella one of the best-designed, most readable poetry journals on line. That is why I sent my poems there in the first place.

Kate also gives kudos to her co-editors Rachel Dacus and C. E. Chaffin:

These people are all pro’s; there are no cons.

I have found Kate Bernadette Benedict a poet-friendly editor — open, professional, friendly but with very high standards. These characteristics are reflected in the interview, which I suggest you read in full.

Then go read Umbrella. You’ll find a link on my sidebar.

Read the whole excellent series.

__________
P.S. Kate is always looking for new voices:

An appearance of clubbiness is death to a journal, in my opinion. Though Umbrella gets submissions from lots of new people each quarter, the proportion of publishable work from that batch is lower than I would hope. It remains an important goal for me to keep the roster fresh.