G. Murray Thomas (ex-NEXT magazine creator and Long Beach/OC icon) in his current Poetix.net review column:
In my opinion, all poetry (all art, in fact) needs to be open to interpretation. That is how we bring our own experiences to the poetry, and engage with it emotionally as well as intellectually.
Showing posts with label Long Beach poetry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Long Beach poetry. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2016
Friday, June 12, 2015
When you're outnumbered and you know it....
Here are two excerpts from a fellow poet's recent blog post that are worth sharing; it should be noted that my aesthetic ideals don't match with his, but the paragraphs below contain sentiments we both agree with:
In the LA poetry scene, the question is how long have you been active locally? Or how long have you hosted a particular venue? A poet could be the shittiest writer alive but if they have been active in the scene for 25 years and hosted some open mic at some coffeehouse for the last 10 of those years then they are venerated as the greatest living LA poet alive ever. And you have to play the game, you have to get in the queue and coo and caw over these venerated poets for a bit before you are even vaguely acknowledged by the cool kids. If you come in roaring and lay down the gauntlet and demand respect according to your writing ability, this will never work.
LA has a habit of forming their own poetry groups where they then give out their own poetry awards. This is really hilarious to me. Some poet makes up some group like “The Poets Who Say Snee” and then they have an open mic at some coffeehouse for a few years and then they put out an anthology of “The Snee Poets” and then if they build this up after a while they start giving out “The Snee Poetry Awards.” If you happen to point out that some of the Snee Poets are not very good, then you get shot down with a “What have you ever done for the community? Have you ever run your own Snee Poetry group for six years hmmm? No? Then shut the fuck up nobody cares about your opinion.”
The full post can be read at:
http://rumrazor.com/2015/06/12/the-snee-poets/
My only addendums are:
1. Prepare to hear banshee-level shrieking if you say--with or without naming Names--that certain people in poetry communities behave badly towards inferiors and even some peers.
2. Also, prepare to find out how alone you are if you complain about people who want the poetry community to be as small as possible--doing their best to chase others away with epithets like "journal-entry."
In the LA poetry scene, the question is how long have you been active locally? Or how long have you hosted a particular venue? A poet could be the shittiest writer alive but if they have been active in the scene for 25 years and hosted some open mic at some coffeehouse for the last 10 of those years then they are venerated as the greatest living LA poet alive ever. And you have to play the game, you have to get in the queue and coo and caw over these venerated poets for a bit before you are even vaguely acknowledged by the cool kids. If you come in roaring and lay down the gauntlet and demand respect according to your writing ability, this will never work.
LA has a habit of forming their own poetry groups where they then give out their own poetry awards. This is really hilarious to me. Some poet makes up some group like “The Poets Who Say Snee” and then they have an open mic at some coffeehouse for a few years and then they put out an anthology of “The Snee Poets” and then if they build this up after a while they start giving out “The Snee Poetry Awards.” If you happen to point out that some of the Snee Poets are not very good, then you get shot down with a “What have you ever done for the community? Have you ever run your own Snee Poetry group for six years hmmm? No? Then shut the fuck up nobody cares about your opinion.”
The full post can be read at:
http://rumrazor.com/2015/06/12/the-snee-poets/
My only addendums are:
1. Prepare to hear banshee-level shrieking if you say--with or without naming Names--that certain people in poetry communities behave badly towards inferiors and even some peers.
2. Also, prepare to find out how alone you are if you complain about people who want the poetry community to be as small as possible--doing their best to chase others away with epithets like "journal-entry."
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Why, Gatsby Books, Why?
This past weekend, I received an e-mail which contained the sentence below:
The Best-Loved, Independent Bookstore in Long Beach is Still Lummox-Free!
My attempt at a translation:
The proprietor of Lummox Press (someone I gave up on after being embarrassed by him during two publication readings for the LUMMOX #2 issue a year previous) had difficulties with the Gatsby Bookstore in Long Beach CA. And he is still not allowed even to have "the best-loved independent bookstore in Long Beach" carry the books by the authors/poets he publishes--because the store doesn't care for him.
Having been the object of banishment myself, I empathize with the Lummox publisher's plight (regardless of how I feel personally).
And I find it rather childish and unprofessional of the Gatsby Bookstore to trumpet its alleged moral superiority in e-mail advertisements.
Not to mention the store's willingness to punish Lummox poets/writers by association.
Whether or not the Lummox publisher is ever allowed in Gatsby again is up to the store.
But Lummox Books should have the chance to be sold there.
The Best-Loved, Independent Bookstore in Long Beach is Still Lummox-Free!
My attempt at a translation:
The proprietor of Lummox Press (someone I gave up on after being embarrassed by him during two publication readings for the LUMMOX #2 issue a year previous) had difficulties with the Gatsby Bookstore in Long Beach CA. And he is still not allowed even to have "the best-loved independent bookstore in Long Beach" carry the books by the authors/poets he publishes--because the store doesn't care for him.
Having been the object of banishment myself, I empathize with the Lummox publisher's plight (regardless of how I feel personally).
And I find it rather childish and unprofessional of the Gatsby Bookstore to trumpet its alleged moral superiority in e-mail advertisements.
Not to mention the store's willingness to punish Lummox poets/writers by association.
Whether or not the Lummox publisher is ever allowed in Gatsby again is up to the store.
But Lummox Books should have the chance to be sold there.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
The "weed them out" poetry community mentality in a nutshell.
Was on Amazon a few minutes ago and noticed this comment on an anthology of Southern California poets:
I like the idea of providing an alternative medium to recognize poetic talent. The different levels of accomplishment, though, really dilute the truly talented .
I like the idea of providing an alternative medium to recognize poetic talent. The different levels of accomplishment, though, really dilute the truly talented .
Monday, June 30, 2014
A poetry-related comment akin to "loose lips sink ships."
A poet said this to me in the midst of a difference of opinion between the two of us: "I dedicate my work in the community to lifting boats, not sinking them."
And it says something about the desire of many in the poetry community to have people on the same page in public on poetic standards and the importance of following hierarchy to the letter.
But if most people agree on not allowing dissenting uttered-in-public opinions (just noticed a Facebook poetry discussion group where you can "exercise beauty and celebrate free speech" once you're approved to join by its moderator, who also cautions "don't be a dick") it's difficult to parse the logic that the temple of Poetry Community is so fragile that disagreement on certain subjects by the few, or the one, will cause the temple to collapse and crumble.
In short, the boat of Majority Opinion will always float--regardless of what other people may tell you.
And it says something about the desire of many in the poetry community to have people on the same page in public on poetic standards and the importance of following hierarchy to the letter.
But if most people agree on not allowing dissenting uttered-in-public opinions (just noticed a Facebook poetry discussion group where you can "exercise beauty and celebrate free speech" once you're approved to join by its moderator, who also cautions "don't be a dick") it's difficult to parse the logic that the temple of Poetry Community is so fragile that disagreement on certain subjects by the few, or the one, will cause the temple to collapse and crumble.
In short, the boat of Majority Opinion will always float--regardless of what other people may tell you.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Eric Morago's tact-challenged review of Alex Frankel's latest poetry book.
Full disclosure: I had a Little Red Book published years ago by Lummox Press.
http://poetix.net/reviews.htm (see May 2014 for the full review)
Key passages of Eric Morago's review I took exception to (highlighting by me):
Birth Mother Mercy does not feel entirely whole to me, or rather, actualized. I say this for a few reasons: there are poems, and even a whole section, which feel quite disjointed from both tone and theme of the collection’s best work. This results in jarring the reader in a way that I don’t believe is intentional, and undercuts the strength of the really good poems—the weight they give to the collection. And what of those really good poems I speak of? Frankel has a handful of them in this book, mostly all about the passing of his father—his processing of that loss and the anger he feels towards his father’s widow. They’re all quite good. So good in fact that Frankel had them all published already in a chapbook entitled, My Father’s Lady, Wearing Black, put out by Conflux Press. Now there’s nothing wrong with pulling from past chapbooks, or even having a whole chapbook serve as a section of a full-length manuscript, if it fits the collection—especially if the chapbook was published years prior, has long been forgotten about, and/or is out of print. But here’s the thing—My Father’s Lady, Wearing Black was published in 2013…the same year as Birth Mother Mercy.
So upon learning this, as a reviewer, as well as a reader, I’m left asking myself: “What warrants these poems’ being republished so soon in a full-length collection only two-thirds more the size of the original chapbook—a two-thirds which is arguably not as strong.
Follow up questions I ask myself are: “Why should I buy the same poems twice?” Did Lummox not know? Was Frankel trying to pull a fast one so he could get two books out, or did Lummox solicit him for a full-length manuscript and, not wanting to turn the opportunity down, took his already balanced chapbook and flushed it out with some other miscellaneous work, thus creating a lopsided Birth Mother Mercy?
Why do I assume there was no editor for Birth Mother Mercy? A couple reasons. First, there’s no editor accredited, which leads me to suspect no one filled the role. Second, the poems that are in the chapbook, My Father’s Lady, Wearing Black, appear as exact copies in Birth Mother Mercy. This suggests Lummox had no editor to offer possible changes the second time around when it came to publish the poems once again, which only begs the question yet again: Why should I buy the same poems twice? (Even the blurbs on the back of the two books are the same.)
Why is an editor so important? Their job is to help the poet shape their manuscript—to understand and support the poet’s voice, while at the same time offering a fresh perspective in order to ultimately build with the poet a collection that is the best representation of their work. The end result should be a polished manuscript that feels fulfilled—that feels labored over by more than just the poet themselves, but by editor(s) and publisher alike.
Alex M. Frankel is a talented poet and puts good work out there, but Birth Mother Mercy is an awkward representation of his strengths, especially with My Father’s Lady, Wearing Black situated as the more attractive older sibling. Perhaps if some different (possibly editorial) choices were made with Birth Mother Mercy, the collection would stand out more to me as masterful than mishmash.
http://poetix.net/reviews.htm (see May 2014 for the full review)
Key passages of Eric Morago's review I took exception to (highlighting by me):
Birth Mother Mercy does not feel entirely whole to me, or rather, actualized. I say this for a few reasons: there are poems, and even a whole section, which feel quite disjointed from both tone and theme of the collection’s best work. This results in jarring the reader in a way that I don’t believe is intentional, and undercuts the strength of the really good poems—the weight they give to the collection. And what of those really good poems I speak of? Frankel has a handful of them in this book, mostly all about the passing of his father—his processing of that loss and the anger he feels towards his father’s widow. They’re all quite good. So good in fact that Frankel had them all published already in a chapbook entitled, My Father’s Lady, Wearing Black, put out by Conflux Press. Now there’s nothing wrong with pulling from past chapbooks, or even having a whole chapbook serve as a section of a full-length manuscript, if it fits the collection—especially if the chapbook was published years prior, has long been forgotten about, and/or is out of print. But here’s the thing—My Father’s Lady, Wearing Black was published in 2013…the same year as Birth Mother Mercy.
So upon learning this, as a reviewer, as well as a reader, I’m left asking myself: “What warrants these poems’ being republished so soon in a full-length collection only two-thirds more the size of the original chapbook—a two-thirds which is arguably not as strong.
Follow up questions I ask myself are: “Why should I buy the same poems twice?” Did Lummox not know? Was Frankel trying to pull a fast one so he could get two books out, or did Lummox solicit him for a full-length manuscript and, not wanting to turn the opportunity down, took his already balanced chapbook and flushed it out with some other miscellaneous work, thus creating a lopsided Birth Mother Mercy?
Why do I assume there was no editor for Birth Mother Mercy? A couple reasons. First, there’s no editor accredited, which leads me to suspect no one filled the role. Second, the poems that are in the chapbook, My Father’s Lady, Wearing Black, appear as exact copies in Birth Mother Mercy. This suggests Lummox had no editor to offer possible changes the second time around when it came to publish the poems once again, which only begs the question yet again: Why should I buy the same poems twice? (Even the blurbs on the back of the two books are the same.)
Why is an editor so important? Their job is to help the poet shape their manuscript—to understand and support the poet’s voice, while at the same time offering a fresh perspective in order to ultimately build with the poet a collection that is the best representation of their work. The end result should be a polished manuscript that feels fulfilled—that feels labored over by more than just the poet themselves, but by editor(s) and publisher alike.
Alex M. Frankel is a talented poet and puts good work out there, but Birth Mother Mercy is an awkward representation of his strengths, especially with My Father’s Lady, Wearing Black situated as the more attractive older sibling. Perhaps if some different (possibly editorial) choices were made with Birth Mother Mercy, the collection would stand out more to me as masterful than mishmash.
Monday, June 9, 2014
When respected poetry leaders want more respect.
A poet in the Los Angeles community wrote this to me publicly (on Facebook) regarding a poetry venue where I have been banned for almost ten years: "...don't know if you want to read this, but... let it go. There are many other venues in the ocean. Forgiveness doesn't seem to be a trait of [venue hosts]. Too bad.They're missing some good, heart-felt poetry."
And, of course, I discovered a few weeks later he was featuring at that particular venue.
Yes, I understand careerism. And I also am aware this poet earned an MFA--partially to open more doors as a teacher and, apparently, to make certain people in the LA/OC/LBC communities look upon him with a greater degree of respect.
The sad truth is that he's probably chasing respect that won't be given to him by some leaders--and is willing to sacrifice self-respect to turn the other cheek to public humiliation in the process.
With some sadness, I unfriended him from Facebook.
Part of the unfriending was motivated by years of my foolishly confiding in him (and being told "I'm in your corner") when I should have known better.
Around fourteen years ago (well before I took to writing a blog about poetry and other arts/political/personal topics), I asked in a public forum why the Los Angeles Poetry Festival (when it still existed) had such a narrow focus in terms of poets booked. This was in comparatively halcyon days when many more venues for all kinds of poetry existed. But yet, to me, it seemed the festival wasn't even trying to reflect the diversity of the city's poets.
You'd think I let a skunk into a garden party to run amok.
I received lots of polite-but-firm rebuttals, perhaps motivated by fear of offending the Major Poet who was head of the LAPF.
And the poet I unfriended was one of those rebutters.
But yet I was clueless and impolitic enough to occasionally ask him for advice or run my minority/contrarian views past him on certain subjects concerning poets and jams I got myself into or discussing certain brutal insults/characterizations tossed at me.
Sometimes, he'd say things to me that indicated he had sympathy for my point of view--agreeing with me that certain people weren't all that.
Nonetheless, he still publicly craved the approval of those poets--and, on occasion, got validation and opportunity from them.
To finish, I have to admit the unfriended poet has, at his best, done a lot of good for the community as a whole.
It's just too bad he's determined to prove the respect he's justly received will never be enough.
And, of course, I discovered a few weeks later he was featuring at that particular venue.
Yes, I understand careerism. And I also am aware this poet earned an MFA--partially to open more doors as a teacher and, apparently, to make certain people in the LA/OC/LBC communities look upon him with a greater degree of respect.
The sad truth is that he's probably chasing respect that won't be given to him by some leaders--and is willing to sacrifice self-respect to turn the other cheek to public humiliation in the process.
With some sadness, I unfriended him from Facebook.
Part of the unfriending was motivated by years of my foolishly confiding in him (and being told "I'm in your corner") when I should have known better.
Around fourteen years ago (well before I took to writing a blog about poetry and other arts/political/personal topics), I asked in a public forum why the Los Angeles Poetry Festival (when it still existed) had such a narrow focus in terms of poets booked. This was in comparatively halcyon days when many more venues for all kinds of poetry existed. But yet, to me, it seemed the festival wasn't even trying to reflect the diversity of the city's poets.
You'd think I let a skunk into a garden party to run amok.
I received lots of polite-but-firm rebuttals, perhaps motivated by fear of offending the Major Poet who was head of the LAPF.
And the poet I unfriended was one of those rebutters.
But yet I was clueless and impolitic enough to occasionally ask him for advice or run my minority/contrarian views past him on certain subjects concerning poets and jams I got myself into or discussing certain brutal insults/characterizations tossed at me.
Sometimes, he'd say things to me that indicated he had sympathy for my point of view--agreeing with me that certain people weren't all that.
Nonetheless, he still publicly craved the approval of those poets--and, on occasion, got validation and opportunity from them.
To finish, I have to admit the unfriended poet has, at his best, done a lot of good for the community as a whole.
It's just too bad he's determined to prove the respect he's justly received will never be enough.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Poetry e-mail from 2009 on "overcrafted" vs. "undercrafted" poems.
Today, I've been deleting old e-mail and I came across something written to me by a Major Figure To This Day in SoCal poetry. Most of it I won't share here, since it was back and forth opinionating on the quality and artistic worth of certain poets (most of them still active locally).
But this passage is generalized enough to reprint here:
I think if you stopped dividing poetry into separate "well-crafted" and "accessible" categories, you'd be able to understand my take on it better.
I fully agree that there are overcrafted poems out there, and that they turn off the general audience. I see everything which happened in SoCal poetry (and across the country for that matter) over the last twenty years as a fight against overcrafted poetry. If the pendulum is starting to swing back that way, that's regrettable.
But at the same time we opened the door, perhaps too wide, to undercrafted poetry. Which is, in fact, just as inaccessible. A rambling journal entry will chase the audience out of a reading just as fast as a piece of dry academia. You need the balance.
Notice the phrase "journal entry" and wonder (as I sometimes do) whether a poem written by a poet about his/her travails becomes more acceptable if you're "in" with people who shape the community by way of who gets booked for features and special tribute readings.
But this passage is generalized enough to reprint here:
I think if you stopped dividing poetry into separate "well-crafted" and "accessible" categories, you'd be able to understand my take on it better.
I fully agree that there are overcrafted poems out there, and that they turn off the general audience. I see everything which happened in SoCal poetry (and across the country for that matter) over the last twenty years as a fight against overcrafted poetry. If the pendulum is starting to swing back that way, that's regrettable.
But at the same time we opened the door, perhaps too wide, to undercrafted poetry. Which is, in fact, just as inaccessible. A rambling journal entry will chase the audience out of a reading just as fast as a piece of dry academia. You need the balance.
Notice the phrase "journal entry" and wonder (as I sometimes do) whether a poem written by a poet about his/her travails becomes more acceptable if you're "in" with people who shape the community by way of who gets booked for features and special tribute readings.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Interesting quote that can also apply to poetry communities.
"what you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me"
The original context of the quote above (by film writer Glenn Kenny) has to do with allegations of film critic "groupthink" and whether there is or should be a critical community. Mr. Kenny thinks not, with the exception of his quoted remark.
Of course, in the poetry community, it's Gospel that you criticize and censure down the ladder instead of the upwards direction.
So what's done to the least of your brother and sister poets is not your problem.
Either ostracize them, or tell them to keep writing regardless of what people say.
And don't let them jeopardize your relationships with the poets who really matter to you.
The original context of the quote above (by film writer Glenn Kenny) has to do with allegations of film critic "groupthink" and whether there is or should be a critical community. Mr. Kenny thinks not, with the exception of his quoted remark.
Of course, in the poetry community, it's Gospel that you criticize and censure down the ladder instead of the upwards direction.
So what's done to the least of your brother and sister poets is not your problem.
Either ostracize them, or tell them to keep writing regardless of what people say.
And don't let them jeopardize your relationships with the poets who really matter to you.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
New poem: WHAT IS HELL?
WHAT IS HELL?
it’s a question
that rents a room
in my mind these days
is Hell a place
like the current
Beverly
Center food court
where almost everything
is closed
and you’re the only one
informally dining there
and the elevators don’t work
and the escalator is broken
so you can’t leave the mall
no matter how much you want to
or is it a chain bookstore
where you’re watching
a powerful blowhard poet
declaiming in body language
turned up to 12:
YOU’RE NOT ME
AND YOU NEVER WILL BE
and you can’t leave the store
no matter how much you want to
or is Hell
that part of one’s psyche
repeating this mantra:
if it happened Before,
it will happen Once More,
and you can’t make a move,
atone for sins,
or try anything new
and you can’t leave your house
no matter how much you want to
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Unfortunately, that's me: "A burr under the saddle of L.A. poetry."
Last night, I was at a publication reading in the San Fernando Valley.
And the publisher of the anthology introduced me as "a burr under the saddle of L.A. poetry."
Perhaps he didn't think that was all that bad a description.
But it was the second time he's used that phrase to introduce me. And I guess there's no choice but to submit and accept this as sort-of-inevitable--when I earn a place in a local/regional/national anthology and am a part of a publication reading.
What is a burr under a saddle of a group/institution/community?
To most people, it's something to be removed because it's bothersome/massively irritating.
And, in the past, when I've offered unpopular opinions, complained about the shrinkage-in-size of the poetry community, wondered aloud about poor treatment of certain poets, or made the mistake of facing certain people head-on, people have tried to remove me.
Sometimes, it's by comparing me to fecal matter or implying I'm a wifebeater.
Other times, it's by saying that my death can't come soon enough.
And then, there's the tool of anonymous attack websites.
Once in a while, some people will have my back. But, usually, there's silence.
In the case of the person who said my death couldn't come soon enough, he taught MFA aspirants at a local college and co-hosted a popular literary reading. So it was easy for many to choose whose side they wanted to be on.
Yesterday, Pete Seeger died.
I wonder how many people eulogizing him (particularly for standing up to the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s) fully grasp the concept that unpopular speech is equally worthy of support and protection as the popular variety.
And the publisher of the anthology introduced me as "a burr under the saddle of L.A. poetry."
Perhaps he didn't think that was all that bad a description.
But it was the second time he's used that phrase to introduce me. And I guess there's no choice but to submit and accept this as sort-of-inevitable--when I earn a place in a local/regional/national anthology and am a part of a publication reading.
What is a burr under a saddle of a group/institution/community?
To most people, it's something to be removed because it's bothersome/massively irritating.
And, in the past, when I've offered unpopular opinions, complained about the shrinkage-in-size of the poetry community, wondered aloud about poor treatment of certain poets, or made the mistake of facing certain people head-on, people have tried to remove me.
Sometimes, it's by comparing me to fecal matter or implying I'm a wifebeater.
Other times, it's by saying that my death can't come soon enough.
And then, there's the tool of anonymous attack websites.
Once in a while, some people will have my back. But, usually, there's silence.
In the case of the person who said my death couldn't come soon enough, he taught MFA aspirants at a local college and co-hosted a popular literary reading. So it was easy for many to choose whose side they wanted to be on.
Yesterday, Pete Seeger died.
I wonder how many people eulogizing him (particularly for standing up to the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s) fully grasp the concept that unpopular speech is equally worthy of support and protection as the popular variety.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Glad I didn't give up writing poetry.
Received this opinion years ago from someone who used to live in SoCal and now lives elsewhere in the country:
You're right, it's not a level playing field, and you don't get points for just being there. You've actually got to do something well. Writing well would be a start. I DO remember your chapbook. I still have it, in the piles of several hundred that I dutifully carried with me cross-country when I moved. Terry, it was dull. Very dull. Not bad, but there was little of interest going on there. I don't recall if I had read it yet when I saw you in Redondo, but even if I had, I doubt I would have said much. What was I supposed to say? "Sorry, it bored me to tears." But as I recall, it took me awhile to get around to it, because, even now, I get a ton of chapbooks very month. I've not thrown one away, and I try to read them all, but no, I can't review them, and I really had nothing consequential to say about it, for good or bad. As to my "wisdom would be something of value," Whatever. I don't recall volunteering to be your mentor, and while I've taught poetry in high schools and colleges, I don't recall you being in any of my classes. The sad fact is, Terry, I thought you were a nice guy,and always tried to be friendly to you, but no, I didn't care much for your writing. Would you have preferred that I said that? I can't see what good that would have done. It's not like I walked out of the room when you were on the microphone. Maybe you've gotten better, I don't know.
The happy ending to the story above: a poem of mine made it into a literary journal recently--along with a poem by the writer above (plus his talented spouse).
Since I've been outspoken about the writer in the past (more than once--though with occasional positive words), I'm not expecting any response.
Just happy that I kept writing and learning about writing without being wounded enough by his opinionating to give up poetry altogether.
You're right, it's not a level playing field, and you don't get points for just being there. You've actually got to do something well. Writing well would be a start. I DO remember your chapbook. I still have it, in the piles of several hundred that I dutifully carried with me cross-country when I moved. Terry, it was dull. Very dull. Not bad, but there was little of interest going on there. I don't recall if I had read it yet when I saw you in Redondo, but even if I had, I doubt I would have said much. What was I supposed to say? "Sorry, it bored me to tears." But as I recall, it took me awhile to get around to it, because, even now, I get a ton of chapbooks very month. I've not thrown one away, and I try to read them all, but no, I can't review them, and I really had nothing consequential to say about it, for good or bad. As to my "wisdom would be something of value," Whatever. I don't recall volunteering to be your mentor, and while I've taught poetry in high schools and colleges, I don't recall you being in any of my classes. The sad fact is, Terry, I thought you were a nice guy,and always tried to be friendly to you, but no, I didn't care much for your writing. Would you have preferred that I said that? I can't see what good that would have done. It's not like I walked out of the room when you were on the microphone. Maybe you've gotten better, I don't know.
The happy ending to the story above: a poem of mine made it into a literary journal recently--along with a poem by the writer above (plus his talented spouse).
Since I've been outspoken about the writer in the past (more than once--though with occasional positive words), I'm not expecting any response.
Just happy that I kept writing and learning about writing without being wounded enough by his opinionating to give up poetry altogether.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
A type of bullying that may be practiced by some members of poetry communities.
I found this on www.stopcyberbullying.org and it's something that can be easily applied to situations among adults:
“The Vengeful Angel”
In this type of cyberbullying, the cyberbully doesn’t see themselves as a bully at all. They see themselves as righting wrongs, or protecting themselves or others from the “bad guy” they are now victimizing. This includes situations when the victim of cyberbullying or offline bullying retaliates and becomes a cyberbully themselves They may be angry at something the victim did and feel they are taking warranted revenge or teaching the other a lesson. The “Vengeful Angel” cyberbully often gets involved trying to protect a friend who is being bullied or cyberbullied. They generally work alone, but may share their activities and motives with their close friends and others they perceive as being victimized by the person they are cyberbullying.
Vengeful Angels need to know that no one should try and take justice into their own hands. They need to understand that few things are clear enough to understand, and that fighting bullying with more bullying only makes things worse. They need to see themselves as bullies, not the do-gooder they think they are. It also helps to address the reasons they lashed out in the first place. If they sense injustices, maybe there really are injustices. Instead of just blaming the Vengeful Angel, solutions here also require that the situation be reviewed to see what can be done to address the underlying problem. S there a place to report bullying or cyberbullying? Can that be done anonymously? Is there a peer counseling group that handles these matters? What about parents and school administrators. Do they ignore bullying when it occurs, or do they take it seriously? The more methods we can give these kinds of cyberbullies to use official channels to right wrongs, the less often they will try to take justice into their own hands.
“The Vengeful Angel”
In this type of cyberbullying, the cyberbully doesn’t see themselves as a bully at all. They see themselves as righting wrongs, or protecting themselves or others from the “bad guy” they are now victimizing. This includes situations when the victim of cyberbullying or offline bullying retaliates and becomes a cyberbully themselves They may be angry at something the victim did and feel they are taking warranted revenge or teaching the other a lesson. The “Vengeful Angel” cyberbully often gets involved trying to protect a friend who is being bullied or cyberbullied. They generally work alone, but may share their activities and motives with their close friends and others they perceive as being victimized by the person they are cyberbullying.
Vengeful Angels need to know that no one should try and take justice into their own hands. They need to understand that few things are clear enough to understand, and that fighting bullying with more bullying only makes things worse. They need to see themselves as bullies, not the do-gooder they think they are. It also helps to address the reasons they lashed out in the first place. If they sense injustices, maybe there really are injustices. Instead of just blaming the Vengeful Angel, solutions here also require that the situation be reviewed to see what can be done to address the underlying problem. S there a place to report bullying or cyberbullying? Can that be done anonymously? Is there a peer counseling group that handles these matters? What about parents and school administrators. Do they ignore bullying when it occurs, or do they take it seriously? The more methods we can give these kinds of cyberbullies to use official channels to right wrongs, the less often they will try to take justice into their own hands.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
How I ruined it for everyone.
Here's a coda to the Yahoogroups CobaltPoets situation:
I recently accessed the at-that-time-open archives for the purpose of seeing whether a poet who hosts one week of the Rapp Saloon's reading series (I host the second week) had posted an announcement there.
Only then did I notice the discussion about the Monsanto protests.
To restate my earlier opinion in a more temperate way--I do understand the list proprietor's feelings that it's his domain to regulate as he pleases. But once the not-a-poetry-announcement subject of Monsanto appeared (and was allowed to stay), then it should have continued, so long as the participants didn't try to strangle each other rhetorically.
Of course, it doesn't help that the list proprietor and I have had a history of disagreeing with each other--though I have, on occasion, acknowledged his talent and value (the latter in terms of his long-running reading series and pioneering poetry website).
I'm not comfortable with keeping things secret (whether they're poetry announcements or discussions/arguments within the "poetry community").
But other people are.
So now you have a poetry listserve mainly consisting of poetry announcements (which, ideally, should be available to the entire public) kept under lock and key. And you have to be approved by the proprietor before being allowed to join.
And it's all my fault.
Or is it?
UPDATE: Rick Lupert, CobaltPoets proprietor, replies to the above. Here's his complete answer.
"oh, dear...no...I've received a couple of request from people (one recently and one not so recently) to delete past messages that had content they had written that they were concerned would come up as potential employees researched them on the web that they thought might not shed the best light on them. It was suggested to me that making the archives available only to members would make those posts not accessible by google searches etc while still allowing anyone who was part of the group (which is open to anyone to join) could still have access. So, yes there is an extra step for the public to get to the archived material, but it's still available and you, So you've ruined nothing and, Terry, you are more than welcome to rejoin the list if you'd like access to it. Re the Monsanto piece, I also received NUMEROUS requests to nip the conversation in the bud and a handful of "Thank Yous" after it was done...people tend to be pretty finicky about the amount of email they receive and when so much, to them, irrelevant material is posted to a list they're really just looking for poetry information on, it leads to people unsubscribing in flocks...many folks would just unsubscribe without bothering to send an email requesting the list remain focused on poetry...the main point being that the Cobalt list's primary purpose is to support the Cobalt reading...although it's very liberal on allowing other people to post news and information and marginally liberal on allowing occasional commentary and conversation on things involving poetry, when items like the Monsanto conversation come up directly cause people to want to leave the list, it becomes clear that the main purpose of the list begins to take a back seat which does not serve well the reading series or anyone interested in that primary purpose, which is most people on the list. Thanks, by the way, for the kind words you wrote about my website and me. I enjoyed your occasional picture from Italy and hope you and Valerie had an extraordinary experience there."
I recently accessed the at-that-time-open archives for the purpose of seeing whether a poet who hosts one week of the Rapp Saloon's reading series (I host the second week) had posted an announcement there.
Only then did I notice the discussion about the Monsanto protests.
To restate my earlier opinion in a more temperate way--I do understand the list proprietor's feelings that it's his domain to regulate as he pleases. But once the not-a-poetry-announcement subject of Monsanto appeared (and was allowed to stay), then it should have continued, so long as the participants didn't try to strangle each other rhetorically.
Of course, it doesn't help that the list proprietor and I have had a history of disagreeing with each other--though I have, on occasion, acknowledged his talent and value (the latter in terms of his long-running reading series and pioneering poetry website).
I'm not comfortable with keeping things secret (whether they're poetry announcements or discussions/arguments within the "poetry community").
But other people are.
So now you have a poetry listserve mainly consisting of poetry announcements (which, ideally, should be available to the entire public) kept under lock and key. And you have to be approved by the proprietor before being allowed to join.
And it's all my fault.
Or is it?
UPDATE: Rick Lupert, CobaltPoets proprietor, replies to the above. Here's his complete answer.
"oh, dear...no...I've received a couple of request from people (one recently and one not so recently) to delete past messages that had content they had written that they were concerned would come up as potential employees researched them on the web that they thought might not shed the best light on them. It was suggested to me that making the archives available only to members would make those posts not accessible by google searches etc while still allowing anyone who was part of the group (which is open to anyone to join) could still have access. So, yes there is an extra step for the public to get to the archived material, but it's still available and you, So you've ruined nothing and, Terry, you are more than welcome to rejoin the list if you'd like access to it. Re the Monsanto piece, I also received NUMEROUS requests to nip the conversation in the bud and a handful of "Thank Yous" after it was done...people tend to be pretty finicky about the amount of email they receive and when so much, to them, irrelevant material is posted to a list they're really just looking for poetry information on, it leads to people unsubscribing in flocks...many folks would just unsubscribe without bothering to send an email requesting the list remain focused on poetry...the main point being that the Cobalt list's primary purpose is to support the Cobalt reading...although it's very liberal on allowing other people to post news and information and marginally liberal on allowing occasional commentary and conversation on things involving poetry, when items like the Monsanto conversation come up directly cause people to want to leave the list, it becomes clear that the main purpose of the list begins to take a back seat which does not serve well the reading series or anyone interested in that primary purpose, which is most people on the list. Thanks, by the way, for the kind words you wrote about my website and me. I enjoyed your occasional picture from Italy and hope you and Valerie had an extraordinary experience there."
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Forwarded blog post re the continuation of the "small poetry audience" ethos.
Noticed on Facebook--and presented here for your comprehension:
http://blog.pshares.org/index.php/why-poetry-cant-find-its-public/
http://blog.pshares.org/index.php/why-poetry-cant-find-its-public/
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Towel-snapping in the Poetry Locker Room.
Days ago, I posted a poem here called POEM FOR NATIONAL POETRY MONTH.
And I received this response from commenter "AG" who chooses to take the veil of anonymity (boldface provided by me):
How does this qualify as a poem? Just because you used enjambment? Buddy, use some figurative language, assonance, alliteration. Something. This is more of a rant.
I'm not sure how, you, the reader, might react if you heard this kind of comment at a workshop from either the leader or one of the other poets present.
As far as I'm concerned, once someone uses the word "buddy" to me, it means that the person is less interested in constructive advice (re what he/she thinks is a proper poem using poetic forms) than triumphally crashing a sledgehammer over my head as if I'm a steer in a slaughterhouse.
And I received this response from commenter "AG" who chooses to take the veil of anonymity (boldface provided by me):
How does this qualify as a poem? Just because you used enjambment? Buddy, use some figurative language, assonance, alliteration. Something. This is more of a rant.
I'm not sure how, you, the reader, might react if you heard this kind of comment at a workshop from either the leader or one of the other poets present.
As far as I'm concerned, once someone uses the word "buddy" to me, it means that the person is less interested in constructive advice (re what he/she thinks is a proper poem using poetic forms) than triumphally crashing a sledgehammer over my head as if I'm a steer in a slaughterhouse.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
New poem: POEM FOR NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
was it that long ago
when the poet rulers
spun a successful illusion
based on the Mark Twain quote
>
that goes something like:
"The really great make you believe
one day you too can be great"
if only it could be true
>
it certainly wasn't true then
but at least the poetry tent
was large enough
where open mike regulars
>
didn't feel like complete losers
if they didn't conform
to certain hosts' templates
of talent and status
>
now I see people
come and go
to and from
formerly egalitarian coffeehouses
talking to truly true friends
and the air-kiss folks
some poets just know
have their backs
when they submit poems,
small press manuscripts
and beg (without
looking too needy)
for the privilege of
getting a slot
at a group reading
>
happy national poetry month
to you temperate gladiators out there
may a few of your dreams come true
but hopefully not
at the expense of others
when the poet rulers
spun a successful illusion
based on the Mark Twain quote
>
that goes something like:
"The really great make you believe
one day you too can be great"
if only it could be true
>
it certainly wasn't true then
but at least the poetry tent
was large enough
where open mike regulars
>
didn't feel like complete losers
if they didn't conform
to certain hosts' templates
of talent and status
>
now I see people
come and go
to and from
formerly egalitarian coffeehouses
talking to truly true friends
and the air-kiss folks
some poets just know
have their backs
when they submit poems,
small press manuscripts
and beg (without
looking too needy)
for the privilege of
getting a slot
at a group reading
>
happy national poetry month
to you temperate gladiators out there
may a few of your dreams come true
but hopefully not
at the expense of others
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
More than one definition of bullying, apparently.
Quoting Emily Bazelon (her byline can often be found on the SLATE website) in THE NEW YORK TIMES (in context of an op-ed article on how wide the definition of bullying should be):
"The definition of bullying adopted by psychologists is physical or verbal abuse, repeated over time, and involving a power imbalance. In other words, it’s about one person with more social status lording it over another person, over and over again, to make him miserable."
Over the past half-dozen years, I've been told that commenting about certain people on this blog (primarily residents of the poetry community) more than once in a critical fashion is bullying.
I wrote blog posts on people with greater social and professional status than I using their status in jerky/unprofessional/unkind-to-people-below-their-station ways.
But is this just as valid a definition of bullying as Ms. Bazelon's quote above?
Or is it merely a way to silence opinion voiced in public?
"The definition of bullying adopted by psychologists is physical or verbal abuse, repeated over time, and involving a power imbalance. In other words, it’s about one person with more social status lording it over another person, over and over again, to make him miserable."
Over the past half-dozen years, I've been told that commenting about certain people on this blog (primarily residents of the poetry community) more than once in a critical fashion is bullying.
I wrote blog posts on people with greater social and professional status than I using their status in jerky/unprofessional/unkind-to-people-below-their-station ways.
But is this just as valid a definition of bullying as Ms. Bazelon's quote above?
Or is it merely a way to silence opinion voiced in public?
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Another occurrence of poetry burnout.
Posted this past Friday on Facebook:
My recent local experiences with poetry have been mixed, with the low point of having a manuscript rejected by Moon Tide Press. Therefore, I'm accepting not being good enough and not willing to pay for workshops, private study and MFA programs--plus not being capable of getting along well with difficult people. And I'm tired of inviting taunts and abuse. So, no more poetry readings for me in 2013. I don't think I'm a bad poet, so I'll keep reading other people's work and occasionally posting poems of my own. But the current poetry environment is too rarified and mean for me to want to take part in and accept its mores/standards. Goodbye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)