Hot damn but you can't throw a spitball these days without hitting a (potential?) lit scandal. Some voices in the blogosphere are trying to pull David Lehman's card...
September 19, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Recent Comments
Links
Labels
- 2008 (1)
- 21+ (1)
- absent magazine (1)
- Adocentyn (1)
- Alan Turing (1)
- Alfie Patten (1)
- Allegra Goodman (1)
- Allison Harvard (1)
- alone in the woods (1)
- American Literature (1)
- anthologies (1)
- ANTM (1)
- Ariana Huffington (1)
- Ashley Capps (1)
- attention economy (1)
- AWP (2)
- babies (1)
- Barack Obama (1)
- Bee Spit (1)
- Best American Poetry (4)
- billie jean king (1)
- Billy Collins (1)
- blogs (1)
- bobby riggs (1)
- Book Reviewing (2)
- book tours (1)
- books (1)
- Brad Gooch (1)
- Bruce Andrews (1)
- calm (1)
- Camille Paglia (1)
- Cass Corridor (1)
- Charles Frazier (1)
- Charles Simic (1)
- Chicago Review (1)
- Chris Tonelli (1)
- Cloud-Cuckoo-Land (1)
- Cohen Award (1)
- coming soon (1)
- Community (1)
- complete dreck (1)
- Creepy Chan (1)
- cronyism (1)
- Dalai Lama (1)
- dancing girl press (1)
- David Berman (1)
- David Foster Wallace (1)
- David Rakoff (1)
- Diagram (1)
- Donald Dunbar (1)
- edgy magazines (1)
- Eleanor Wilner (1)
- Elections (1)
- emerging writers (4)
- Emily Dickinson (1)
- Erewhon (1)
- everybody goes awww (1)
- evil (1)
- evil twins (1)
- Facebook (1)
- false dichotomy (1)
- Fan Wu (1)
- Farrah Field (2)
- feelin' groovy (1)
- feminism (5)
- Flannery O'Connor (1)
- flattery (1)
- fonts (1)
- form (1)
- forthcoming titles (1)
- free things (2)
- Fresh Air (1)
- Fujiyama (1)
- function (1)
- Funny Ha Ha (1)
- genealogy (1)
- genius steals (1)
- good times (1)
- hair (1)
- Harper's (1)
- Harriet (1)
- Harvard Review (1)
- hatred (1)
- Heather Christle (1)
- hero w/ a thousand faces (1)
- holiday wish lists (1)
- HumPo (1)
- hysterical realism (1)
- imitation (1)
- intentional fallacy (1)
- internet (1)
- Inuits (1)
- James Tate (2)
- James Wood (2)
- Jared White (1)
- Jess Row (1)
- Jim Behrle (1)
- joe massey (1)
- Johannes Goransson (1)
- John Ashbery (2)
- John Updike (3)
- Jonathan Mayhew (1)
- Joshua Clover (1)
- JT LeRoy (1)
- Kenneth Patchen (1)
- Kevin Prufer (1)
- Kevin Sampsell (1)
- Kim Addonizio (1)
- Kitchen Press (1)
- Kristina Contes (1)
- Kucinich (1)
- Lake Wobegone (1)
- laziness (1)
- lies (2)
- Linebreak (1)
- Lisa Frank (1)
- literary prizes (2)
- Literary Vandalism (1)
- Long national nightmare (1)
- Lucinda Williams’ dad (1)
- Many Worlds Interpretation (1)
- Marginal Revolution (1)
- Mark Halliday (1)
- Mark Wallace (1)
- melancholy (1)
- memoirs (1)
- mike heppner (1)
- Missouri Review (1)
- Monument to the Third International (1)
- multimedia empires (1)
- Mumblecore (1)
- nachos (1)
- National Book Awards (2)
- New Voices (4)
- No (1)
- Nobel Prize (1)
- nobody has the beautiful lady (1)
- Norman Mailer (1)
- novellas (1)
- NYT (1)
- Okkervil River (1)
- Orange Prize (1)
- our own horn (1)
- over (1)
- peacocks (1)
- poet laureate (1)
- poetry foundation (1)
- pointless waste (1)
- political poetry (1)
- pornography (1)
- Project Runway (2)
- psychodrama (1)
- publishing (1)
- Pumpkin Fallriver (1)
- Quickie Interviews (2)
- reading (1)
- recap (1)
- Reginald Dwayne Betts (1)
- Reginald Shepherd (1)
- rhymed (1)
- Rivka Galchen (1)
- Robert Frost (1)
- Rodrigo Toscano (1)
- Romeo in black jeans (1)
- Sagrada Familia (1)
- Salvatore Scibona (1)
- sampson starkweather (2)
- Sarah Palin (1)
- Sassy magazine (1)
- se puede (1)
- Segue Series (1)
- Self-promotion (1)
- Seth Abramson (2)
- Sex and the City (1)
- Silliman (2)
- Simonoff (1)
- sister publications (1)
- small presses (2)
- soothing (1)
- spring issues (1)
- submissions (1)
- swag (1)
- switchback books chantarelle's notebook (1)
- syndicated columnist (1)
- Sí (1)
- Tao Lin (6)
- The Believer (1)
- the best of times (1)
- The High Price of Materialism (1)
- The New Childishness (2)
- The New Sincerity (1)
- The New Yorker (1)
- the worst of times (1)
- This Recording (1)
- tongue-in-cheek (1)
- tooting (1)
- translation (1)
- underemployed film students (1)
- unrhymed (1)
- Vampire Weekend (1)
- vehicular hypocrisy (1)
- Victorian melodrama (1)
- Virginia Woolf (1)
- Wallace Stevens (1)
- Wave Books (1)
- William Logan (1)
- Winter Issue (2)
- year-end lists (2)
- Young Lions Award (1)
- Zoe Trope (1)
- Zombies (1)
31 comments:
This is a tough one. I guess I don't have a problem with nepotism, per se. In fact, I love anthologies that represent only specific enclaves, schools, communities, etc. of the poetry landscape. I think the problem in this case, however, might be the title the title of BAP. BEST AMERICAN POETRY.
I think anthologies have no choice but to be reflections of the editor. How can they not be? I know I wouldn’t be able to just turn off my aesthetic filter or whatever, just because I was reading for an anth. or contest. And if you asked me if I like my poet-friend’s poems, I’d say hells yeah. So it makes sense that Lehman likes the poets he associates himself with.
And let’s not deny the fact that connections are a natural part of any business (PoBiz included...though maybe the biz part of po is hurting the po), and I recognize that. So naturally BAP is going to have some Lehman-related poets in it. And usually with these things the series editor and the guest editor in their intros discuss the issue of how they chose who got in and that regrettably tons of good poetry had to be left out. Fair enough.
However, while WE (PoNerds) know that this is simply one lens through which to see the year's poetry, not THE lens, many casual readers of poetry may not. I know that back in the day I certainly thought that the title was to be taken literally. And I've actually enjoyed some of the BAPs, so this is not a judgment on the anthology itself. Just what it claims to be as opposed to what it is.
I feel that, like I was, many folks that casually read poetry are being confused. I'd hate for, like, my mom, or your mom, or Uncle Dave to pick up the collection and think, "Hmmm...this simply MUST be the very best American poetry has to offer." But it does seem like if something is going to market itself as the BEST AMERICAN POETRY, the criteria for who is included and why should be more transparent. And more importantly, perhaps the guidelines for who should not be eligible could be a bit more detailed, so the anthology, and its suggestive title, might be less vulnerable to questions about ethics.
They keep pulling my amazon review! The 2nd one after seemingly having approved it! What is David and Scribner afraid of? Little old me?
xxxjimmy
But the thing that sucks about what I said above is that since Lehman is the series editor, it seems unfair if people associated with him are excluded every year. I mean, think of all the students, teachers, friends, etc. who would have to be ineligible. Seems like we'd be missing out on quite a few really good poets. So that also seems like it wouldn't be representative of the best american poetry. Which again, leads me back to the title. Either way, with no eligibility rules or with stringent ones, it seems tough to declare a single volume BEST AMERICAN POETRY.
Jim, do I smell a cartoon in your future? God I hope so.
CT, are you saying you haven't been reading the BAP cartoons?! Do the words Best American Cartoons mean anything to you
How Iowa Workshoppers must guffaw over the selections of *some* of David's students. If only they had the same odds of showing up in a BAP as the poets who bring David's shirts to the drycleaners...
xxxjimmy
Hi Elisa,
I think I'm an amateur sociologist at heart, which means, to me, these things really do matter. They really do affect the quality of Art in our community (such as it is). I've just posted another brief essay explaining that sociological view, which I know seems ridiculous to many, but if you're both an attorney and an ex-sociology minor, I guess this is just how you think...in a process-oriented fashion(!)
Best,
Seth
I don't think anyone is saying that this doesn't matter. I read your essay, and just disagree with you on WHY this matters.
I mean, Seth, how would you edit the anthology? How would you change the way BAP opperates if you were in Lehman's shoes?
Chris,
Hi there!...sorry for the confusion: I know you're not saying that, unfortunately some others (elsewhere) are. And actually I agree with what you're saying--part of the harm here is constituted by the misapprehensions Lehman is spreading into the non-writing community--but I also think there are other features to the "why" of all this, too.
Best,
Seth
Chris,
Would you believe my wife-to-be asked me the same question? Here's what I would do: let the initial screening process be controlled by those who have a vested interest in promoting work based on merit--the editors of the individual journals, who know that the better the work they send to the Guest Editor is, the better the chance their journal gets exposure by having a poem selected. Also, they're more intimately familiar with the work they've published in the preceding year, so from an efficiency standpoint they'll require less time and resources to determine which poems were standouts. And because their "obligation" to the poets they've published has ended by the time they nominate them--i.e., all rights have reverted, the publication agreement has already been acted upon, and so on, there's no reason for them to feel beholden to anyone. If they choose A and not B, not one's going to feel particularly hurt, particularly because (in my vision) these nominations would be anonymous--it wouldn't be a chestnut for the editors to throw out to their published poets, a laurel to be bestowed, but a process untouched by that sort of pernicious influence (or potentially pernicious influence).
So, every journal which met certain criteria--e.g., a selection process which was merit-based; a publication run of X; an acceptance rate of below, say, 50% (to eliminate places which do not winnow through submissions in any substantial manner)--would submit their best, say, three poems. With about 350 journals out there, that would give the Guest Editor only around 1000 poems to read. There would be a rule stating that relatives and co-workers and students/former students of the Guest Editor could not be selected, and the Guest Editor would not be revealed until the selections had all been sent in (perhaps not even chosen until after this time), so there'd be no danger of journals trying to submit poems by, say, friends of the Guest Editor. Lehman would be relegated to nothing more than an administrative assistant to the Guest Editor.
Finally, to remove any notion of false marketing, the series would be renamed to something like Great American Poems 2006, Great American Poems 2007, and so on (something catchier than that, obviously). That would remove the necessity of each Guest Editor squandering their Introduction each year trying to justify that imbecilic appellation, "best." I think you could even have a title like, Poetry 2006: An Anthology, Poetry 2007: An Anthology, and so on. Lest publishers worry that the anthology won't sell because (invariably) there will be fewer big names if we really base things on merit and on a poem-by-poem (not career) basis, we'd solve the problem this way: you'd get ten noted poets to comment on seven poems each, working it so that each noted poet could comment on seven poems they actually enjoyed (there'd probably be some overlap, then, but that's fine--any poems not selected by the ten noted poets to be commented upon would be commented upon by the Guest Editor). That way, it would be a poetry anthology and a poetry lesson for the public (about what works in a poem) all in one.
That's a rough outline, at least.
Best,
S.
I have a few issues about this process. Certainly Scribner isn't paying Lehman to be an administrative assistant. They chose him to put his stamp on the series. It is unrealistic to say he won't have anything to do with content. Also, many of my favorite journals are small and don't have the money for a large print run. What about the poets in those journals? And what about on-line journals? Because they don't have a print-run per se, are they not elligiible? As to procuring a half-dozen famous poets...these sorts of "appearances" cost money, and Scribner is already paying Lehman and another heavyweight, I doubt they could fork over the dough for 6 more. Anyway, I guess what I am saying is, I think if we were put in the shoes of editing a major anthology, we'd run into some inevitable pitfalls ourselves. I think it is impossible to be squeaky clean in cases like this. You either compromise ethics or quality in its purest sense. What if the guest editor has a former student writing the best poems? It would suck for the anthology not to include him or her.
I think the only criteria we can really judge an anthology on is the poems. And then act accordingly. I mean, if people universally loved the poems in this latest BAP, would this conversation be happening? If people thought these poems were in fact the best, I don't think they'd care how they were chosen.
Unfortunately for us and all of our moms and aunts and people we know by the name of Dick, who don't know dick about poetry, we can talk until we're all blue in the face about how it should be run or titled or what-have-you, but nothing about BAP is ever going to change. It's business as usual (money and politics). I feel a Biggie Smallz lyric coming on. I think there should be an anthology series called BEST AMERICAN LOVE, and it would include all my friends and there losses and palpitations, and of course, celebrities and politicians whose relationships unfold in the media and I will let all of you be a guest editor as long as you bleed within the margins. Best American Death would be good too, and the guest editor could put photos and obituaries of people who died in that past year, but there would only be enough room for like 75 people, and one person would be in charge of choosing who died the Best, (including their friends and loved ones) and whose deaths were unworthy of mentioning, and of course, they would be paid handsomely for their services and expertise.
Sam! You're an idiot. Unless you include me in the Best American Love. And then, of course, I'd love you. Like a fat kid love cake.
Hi Seth,
I certainly think it matters, and is worth talking about, as well, or I wouldn't have pointed to your posts about it. I don't know if it's possible for BAP to be saved, but I appreciate your dismay with the anth as it stands and your idealism re: a better process...
Thanks for alerting us to your further comments on the topic. I'll be reading them.
-Elisa
Thanks Elisa--I do appreciate you posting about this! I didn't mean to intimate that you, or anyone here, didn't think that it mattered. Most of what I've heard on that score has come to me via backchannel communications from other poets, including some former students of David Lehman.
Chris, I think you're talking about logistics, not integrity. Integrity problems require wholesale fixes, logistical problems just require some good problem-solving skills. For instance, on-line journals are eligible for anthologies already, Lehman can be fired for all I care (Scribner can deal directly with the Guest Editor), and frankly I really don't think it would be hard to find poets willing to lend their services to a nationally-significant enterprise like an annual collection of the greatest poems produced by the citizens of the nation. Sure, no anthology's perfect, but give me good process and I'll feel sanguine about people stressing over the outcome. Likewise, I'm not going to throw up my hands and not speak my mind just because none of these things will ever come to pass(!) :-)
S.
I agree with what Seth is saying, but like a good Democrat, I’m not gonna do anything about it (because I’m sure i can't), except drown in a self-wrought ocean of bitching and moaning. To me, BAP is just a microcosm of the Poetry Biz in general, there’s gonna have to be an awful lot of hands NOT being thrown up, because the last time i looked, there is basically no "good process" in the Poetry Biz. If i had a vote (voice that mattered), i'd vote for SETH.
By the way Chris, I think Reb L. had poem chosen from an online publication in the latest BAP. And, if there is a silver lining, perhaps it is that the first tiny step to save, or at least resuscitate BAP, is already in the works for 2007: NOT having B.C. as its editor.
Sorry I was unclear. I was speaking to Seth's specific process outlined above in which his criteria for journals was an X print run. I know on-line journals are eligible. And of course I agree with you, Seth, in siding with integrity over logistics. If I were an anthologist, I of course wouldn't pick my students (unless they really were the years best), my family members (including my wife...unless I was married to one of the best poets), or friends' work that would be suspicious (ie not the best). But I'm a little torn on the subject. In order to present the "best" poetry, sometimes those boundaries have to be crossed. I'm glad poets in the past have published their friends, etc. I'm sure that pissed people off at the time, but the work held up. Perhaps stringent integrity can sometimes get in the way of the "best" poetry. I mean, if the poetry world were built on integrity alone (or the art world in general), we'd be missing out on quite a lot. Are the squeaky clean poets the legends? Now, I'm not saying we should all be drunken and abusive. But you know what I mean. So I guess what I'm saying is, we have to take the good with bad. Which category does this years BAP fall into? I don't know. It sounds, from what everyone's saying, a bit fishy. I think Seth mentioned this either here or on Suburban Ecstasies that the art will eventually speak for itself. And I think that's the bottom line.
Of course, as Simeon pointed out to me, it is oftentimes a matter of resources. If you get into BAP, you may get a book, and that may get you a job, etc. So in that way, all of this bullshit it does effect us in the now and is very frustrating. But as for it making our art worse, I don't think it is. I think great poems and poets are above this kind of activity. I just wish they were being exposed to the reading public, and much of the times nepotism keeps that from happening.
Do folks think, though, that this is different from how things have worked in the past.
Chris, I think you are saying that we live in an imperfect world where sometimes the only way great work gets published is by the poet's friend(s), and we are better for having that work available regardless of how it came about. And I think Seth is saying that ideally, in a perfect world, all publication would be purely merit-based, so it would never be the case that your friend's awesome poetry would get neglected in favor or worse work. The best work would be published via some venue regardless, and therefore you'd never have to resort to being published by a friend, therefore putting the integrity of the work into question. I mean basically I don't think you're disagreeing, I think you're just being far more pragmatic.
I agree that in the real world a zero-nepotism policy in any circle, as long as there is some nepotism anywhere, is not necessarily wholly desirable even if possible. But I also think it would be cool if that wasn't the way it was. Of course even in the sciences that kind of political shit gets in the way, so it's hopeless for our more subjective art.
Michael Hiltzik recently got suspended from the LA Times for sock puppeting. Patrick Frey from the blog Patterico exposed the whole thing. If Lehman really is putting his wife up to boosting his Amazon rankings, to me that's a bigger issue than incestuously including his pals in an anthology. Why have we allowed the discussion to disperse into a philosophical discussion of the reality that a lot of poetry publishing these days is (sadly) about who you know? If the allegations are true, and the evidence of misdeed is clear, someone needs to present this to the publishers of BAP in an objective way, rather than all of us whining on the blogsphere about how unfair it is that poets publish their pals. And if not, we should go back to our desks and write the kinds of poems we think ought to have appeared in the anthology. Whether or not Lehman will ever put them in.
Someone(s), somewhere(s), pointed out that reviews on Amazon are not journalism and therefore aren't subject to the same laws of ethics as journalism (can't be held to the same standards as, say, a book review in the NYT). I think putting your wife up to writing positive reviews for you under a pseudonym is real lame, but not the main issue. How much is one positive review on Amazon really going to up your sales?
I think there is time and room in the world for poets to write good poetry AND engage in conversation about the politics and business of poetry. I don't really buy the argument that our time would always be better spent writing more poems. You still have to read the news, eat some food, go to the gym, interact, etc. We're still people in the world. You could be writing instead of reading blogs--but clearly, we all have time for both.
Merit-based? Last time I checked this wasn't a math test. Merit-based in poetry is...uh...subjective, no? Can one really define merit-based in this situation? And by situation I mean art. I mean if BAP were about getting the highest scoring on some standardized test, then I'd understand merit-based.
I think what everyone is saying is true: the great poems (not the great blog entries) will last. But I do think it is worth discussing...um, er, whining about.
Isn't deeming any poem(s) great granting that we can to an extent judge a poem's merit? No one's saying it's not subjective. But if poetry (any art) were so subjective as to make value statements meaningless we wouldn't bother talking about whether the poems in BAP or any good or not.
Like first-order whining, whining about other poets whining is de rigeur here in blogland.
The Pushcart Prize anthology already has a system like this (where every journal nominates 6 poems or stories or whatever), and their contributing editors can nominate poems as well. Yet no controversy. Perhaps the simple plurality of editors prevents the perception of a discernible “stamp” on the anthology, or playing six degrees with the editor and the guest editor.
Actually the initial Amazon review attacked *me*, at that time the first reviewer. The intention was a bit more--to silence critics. I mean, not to get melodramatic...
xxxjimmy
i'd guess every eyeball here long ago sussed out and cussed out everything B.A.P. is and isn't.
that they had yet to get around to discharging billy collins to guest edit—that don't bode so good.
I don’t really think Collins is to blame (except for, I’d argue, his taste, but he’s America’s most popular living poet, so apparently a lot of folk out there share his taste), at least behind the ideal of “good process.” Collins is just simply doing his job, picking the poems he considers the best, what I would generally consider tame (unthreatening), predictable poems that are similar to his, or perhaps make him chuckle. Surly, Scribner cannot be blamed, the bottom line is they are running a business, and the fucks, I mean folks behind it simply want people to buy it, in fact, they are responsible for people buying it, and I’d say they are pretty damn good at their jobs. They don’t care what the poems are like, it’s not there job to, as long as BAP is selling as much as possible, and maybe not embarrassing the company by bashing America or something that could hurt their reputation, (I’d argue it is that very lack of a revolutionary element missing in the poems selected in BAP, in the year 2006 no less, that is it's biggest dissapointment). I’d say Lehman is the most culpable, he has the most say in the “process” and could change it without losing sales, if he employed something like Pushcart has or what Seth suggested, or just had 3 to 5 different poets with a wide range of aesthetic tastes collaborate to come up with an issue (I’d like to see Collins and Kleinzahler decide on a poem). I know if they changed the process, I’d be energized and excited and spend my money to see what BAP was like. All this being said, I liked a lot of the poets in BAP 2006, but not most of the poems, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the poets themselves didn’t think there best work was represented. Maybe I’m wrong. Also, I should mention I did like a handful of the poems (plus I love to hate) and really enjoyed reading that crazy slam-like (political) poem about Asian street racing (and Race) by Bao Phi. But there were also a few that made me throw-up in my mouth.
I don’t think nepotism has to be a purely bad thing either, I realized after seeing the DADA exhibition at the MoMa how a certain amount of nepotism is necessary for insular dialogues, the way some individual works of art (by artist in similar circles) need to be in the same space in order to challenge each other and feed off each other, evolve to create a collective art, or be revolutionary and counter-revolutionary they sometimes need to be pitted together or against each other. Also, the one thing I kind of like about BAP is that it DOES have that editorial stamp/feel/impression. To me, the best BAP’s are not made up of the 75 poems that the guest editor feels are the best individually written in that particular year, but the 75 poems that make up a poetry that gets across that poet’s aesthetic style, taste, or impression. I mean that’s the whole point of the guest editor, damn isn’t this the Psharers blog, that’s what this whole mag is based on right, that’s why people turn to BAP and to some degree Psahrers, to get a feel for what that editor is all about. I bet a crap load of people bought BAP, not for the actual Best Poems in America (if that quality could be objectively measured), but for what Billy Collins thinks are the Best Poems in America. I know that’s why I bought it when Robert Creeley was the editor, I wanted and expected his friends and the poets he likes to be represented, and I would have been disappointed if they weren’t, I’d argue even if the poets he hated had some better poems out there to choose from, that wouldn’t be what I wanted. That’s part of the appeal of BAP and Psharers, to get a taste of the Guest Editor, it maybe flawed, but it also has some advantages over some other elaborate systems, especially for the people who love the specific editor of that given year.
In the larger scheme of things, I don’t think BAP helps or hurts Art (Poetry) one way or the other (maybe careerism, but that ain’t art, it’s kind of the opposite). People make art because they have to, if you’re writing with the goal of trying to be in BAP, or trying to write poetry that is like BAP, then you’re not going to be creating great art in the first place. If there is a problem with BAP, it is more a problem of bad representation, and/or misrepresentation. BAP has great power to expose poetry to people who can’t afford the time or money or energy to surf through the thousands of lit mags to find the best that Poetry in America has to offer, and who want a good cross sampling. Right now, as it stands, BAP is not that: Best American Poetry, it’s the BAP of so-and-so editor, I wonder if you picked any other major poet to edit the same year, even one similar to Collins, how many of the same 75 poems out of the millions eligible they would pick, if they picked any of the same at all (I think probably none). This is why the poets always write a 4 page disclaimer or apology about the title of the series, it seems either the name should be changed or the process should be changed if they don’t want to false advertise.
Finally, going back to one of Chris’s comments/questions; I think the problem with process (in regards to BAP and the Poetry biz in general) is that things haven’t exactly always worked ideally in the past either; I mean poetry has always been a political empire, most of the art we consider great today was not considered so in its day. If they had a BAP back in the 1800's, a lot the great poets would be missing. In fact, they did have anthologies that I've read from the early-to-mid 1900's that are mind-boggling in whom they leave out. So at some levels, we should probably expect a bit of bad or false representation of our current poetry by the powers that be. People tend to have power for what they have done in the past, and people with power desperately try to hold on to that, unfortunately, it’s the future that will decide what is great now, not the past or even the proclaimed now, besides, in the future, the real now is the future. (wow, that blew my mind dude, as Gilchrest Childers or The Dude might say, “think about it, man.”)
Elisa, if Lehman put his wife up to Amazon spoofery, it's unethical -- whether or not Amazon reviews are considered journalism. The ethics of including his pals in an anthology, by contrast, is highly debateable. So, instead of focusing on wrongdoing, we are focusing on speculation. Whining, in fact.
My point is our time would be better spent by either pursuing the allegations, arguing Lehman shouldn't edit future editions, or instead we should go back to our desks and work on our poems. Noone likes to hear poets complain about why -- or why the believe in the future -- their brilliant work won't get published. OK, I'll stop whining about whining now.
Robert:
But we DO like to hear poets complain -- otherwise this thread wouldn't have 27 comments! Seriously, though, I don't think the issue (for me, at least) is that I'm pissed I'm not in the anthology. I've got some poems forthcoming in LIT so my chances of being in next year's BAP are higher than most!
I think that ethics as a whole are highly debateable. I'm surprised you think it's so cut and dry that one practice is ethical and the other is not. Clearly some of the people engaged in this discussion believe that heavy nepotism in publishing is just as or far more unethical than the Amazon sockpuppeting...
You really think all these comments are whiny? Go back and read what Starkweather wrote, but in a deep baritone. It helps.
No one listens to poetry. The ocean
Does not mean to be listened to. A drop
Or Crash of water. It means
Nothing.
-from Thing Language
I thought you meant Charles Starkweather.
Seriously, and on a lighter note: I don't think ethics are cut and dried -- I just think we're all buzzing around generalizations while the one issue that is pretty cut and dried (maybe, if it's true); the one issue a publisher might care about; the one issue the general public might understand -- is sitting in the middle of the room eating peanuts.
Nihilism is such a cop-out. It's the ultimate excuse for mediocrity and the status quo.
Seems to me like you just personally care a lot about that one issue. The other issues are equally provable (or disprovable), and I don't know about the "general public," but nepotism is something poets, at least, can understand, whether or not they are into it. We care about different things, 'sokay: I don't think we are "whining" any more than you are, though, just because we're discussing a different topic. We're either all whining or nobody is.
I'm hijacking this from a different medium, but allow me to quote S. Starkweather, whom I don't think is a nihilist:
"Some of us are trying to have a dialogue about art and the fragile conditions or circumstances that surround it, like all the great poets have always done going back to Plato and the Republic; it's why the poets were kicked out,
not because they sat around and wrote poems all day, (poems don't change things, poets (and ideas) do) but because they had arguments and exchanged ideas all day, which was a revolutionary act, and justly seen as dangerous because of its potential to threaten established power structures."
Yeah, stick it to the man!
Post a Comment