Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Months ago, in preparation for a workshop/class I was going to lead in nature writing for the Musehouse Writing Center I asked the poet Jane Hirshfield several questions about her views on nature and poetry. Aside from her wonderful books of poems, Hirshfield also wrote a collection of essays called Nine Gates, which deals somewhat with that subject especially in the “Two Secrets” chapter.

The class never happened, so I’ve been sitting on this wonderful interview for months and decided that I should just publish it as is so other readers can benefit from it. The questions here are not a comprehensive look at my interest in the subject, but they’re interesting on their own and I think worth attention. Eventually I may try to wrote a whole coherent article, but the chances are getting slimmer all the time.

I also asked Ted Kooser and William Heyen similar questions. I’ll post their responses separately.

Do you think writers’ approach to nature/wild has changed in the contemporary world? Another way of asking—has our dependence on technology and distance from nature changed the poet’s relationship to it?

It’s hard to speculate about others’ inner experience—but I do suspect that increasing swaths of time in the “information technology” world is affecting poets—as urbanization itself long has. There’s a dangerous rift and amnesia that leads to hubris, exploitation, that carries from the environment and creatures into our treatment of other humans as well, when only mediated experience is seen as “real.”  Aesthetically, concentration on what’s only within the human surround can be seen as being contemporary or as claustrophobic—the response varies. I myself made a very deliberate choice to live in a way exposed to and in connection with the natural. I grew up in lower Manhattan, and wanted something less controlled and modulated in my life. But all of us carry the template of our age, and even if my poems rarely mention busses or an elevator or a comic strip character, I am quite sure that my thoughts move as the 21st century does–with increased speed and compression, acceptance of fracture, comfort with the jump cut. In a way, though, you could say that poetry itself foreshadowed all these “contemporary” habits of mind—it has always leapt, fractured, compressed, courted the uncertain and contradictory as much as courted expression or “beauty.” But how could something even as simple as electric light not alter our psyche’s relation to darkness? Perhaps we turn toward darkness more, now that it is escapable. Perhaps we must turn to bewilderment more, when we live in such orderly grids as we do.

Is nature a good yardstick for measuring our own human issues by?

As Gary Snyder has long pointed out, we humans are nature. What we do is what nature does. Still, remembering the larger field recalibrates. Going up into the High Sierra puts anxiety, selfishness, sentimentality, and neurosis into scale.

In what way do poets sometimes abuse (misuse) nature (I’m thinking of bad Romantic poems here mostly, but you please respond any way you like)?

There are no rules here—I am willing to go on record (heresy!) as being in favor of certain kinds of personification and anthropomorphizing in poems, even as I know they can be horribly abused. It works when it enlivens possibility, fails when it cheapens or simplifies or presumes. What we don’t know, cannot know, has to be remembered and honored. Still, Aristotle praised personification–what we’ve come to call “the pathetic fallacy”—as the “animating principle” in poetry, and I would not give up any mode of meaning-making, so long as it’s used deftly, subtly, toward accurate expansions and not the sentimental. Every metaphor works by internalization of the image into the self. How else could we understand, except by taking in, and trying on the image from inside our own lives, histories, minds? Comprehension is empathic. We understand even “2+2=4″ because we have fingers, feelings, hunger, bodies with mouths as well as brains.

You write that the objective mode (discussed in Nine Gates) is rare and difficult. Is it also less effective or less likely to evoke a response from the reader? A poetry of Vulcans? (sorry for the Star Trek reference)

I’ve used certain haiku as examples of the objective mode—and such poems do need a reader able to feel them fully, or they will be uninhabited ink, ash-shapes. But such a reader is precisely the opposite of feelingless—rather, that reader who is able to feel these poems is a human being so tuned to the full actualities of existence that he or she can feel a spectrum of emotions outside the usually available names—the way a bee can see the ultra-violet road-stripes on certain flowers, which we cannot.

 Galway Kinnell says we must include the city in our definition of nature. What do you think of that?  Can the city work for the poet in the same way as the forest or the sea?

Of course. Our cities are termite mounds and bower bird nests, felt fully. Mark Doty can write urban natural history in a way absolutely continuous with his poems that are set in the non-urban.

Who are your favorite contemporary poets who write with nature/wilderness themes?

Snyder is still a master. Merwin. Heaney’s poems of recollection. Pattiann Rogers, Alison Hawthorne Deming, Sandra Alcosser. Milosz is dead now, but his passion for the natural world was exemplary. Some of Hass. Some of Kay Ryan. Jim Harrison, Dan Gerber. But really, even making this list feels somehow like putting lipstick on a tree. I prefer not to segregate poets by theme—Auden was as urbane as a poet comes, and then there’s his “In Praise of Limestone”; Robert Frost’s concerns were profoundly and ultimately human. And if we understand ourselves as part of nature, there’s not a poet who isn’t a nature poet. I suspect our relationship to the larger existence of this planet would be most restored to sanity if that were the principle we held in mind, rather than one of separation and difference. We are mammals, with mammals’ concerns. That thought, at least to me, is not ignoble or diminishing—it’s curative, chastening, and enlarging.

Here’s a short video of Hirshfield reading. Youtube is loaded with Hirshfield videos.

My next poetry workshop at Musehouse begins the week of March 12. It’s a six-week course held on Wednesday evenings. Go here to view the description and sign up.

Plans for The Keystone Pipeline

 inspired by Richard Hugo’s Plans for Altering the River

Those who favor our plans for the Keystone Pipeline
raise your hand. Thank you for your vote.
Last week, you’ll recall, I spoke about how oil
never complains. How it runs where you spill it,
seemingly at home in oyster beds, flooding prairies pinched
by Chinese banks like those in this graphic
depiction of our plan. We ask for power:
a tanker ruptures or trains derail to drive our cars.
The GOP approves our plans for the Keystone Pipeline.

Due to a procedural vote, I’m sad to report
our project is not on schedule. The president
was listening to the Sierra Club and Interior.
We used to drill deep without remorse or tax,

wavers coming when oil prices were low.
Senate turned their heads and coughed. When we get
that settled, and the concrete, given good weather
we can force our plan for the Keystone Pipeline.

We have the injunction. We silenced the opposition.
The workers are back. The materials arrived
and everything’s humming. I thank you
for this award, this handsome plaque I’ll keep
forever above my mantle, and I’ll read
the inscription often aloud to remind me
how with your courageous backing I fought
our battle and won. I’ll always remember
this banquet this day build the Keystone Pipeline.

Nesting boxes for cranes? A commemorative Sand Hill plaque?
Return of owl and endangered newt? Who are these men?
The National Resource Defense Council on plans for the Keystone Pipeline?
What’s this wild worry over wetlands,
celebrating the runoff, display floats on fire
at night and a forest dance under the stars?
Children sing through my locked door, ‘Old stranger,
we’re going to alter, to alter, alter the aquifer.’
Just when the water was settled and at home.

If you want to read and hear Hugo’s original, go here.

What Do You Mean by That?

Maybe you didn't hear me right.

Michael Robbins discusses New Criticism and the problem of intentionality today in the BAP blog. It’s a thoughtful post, especially the part in which he admits to allowing for meanings in his poems that he didn’t originally intend because when exposed or pointed out by a reader “seemed so right that I couldn’t help adopting them as part of my own understanding of the poem.”

Read Robbins’ complete post here.

I find that particularly interesting because it’s a phenomenon that comes up from time to time in workshops—both ones I’ve participated in and ones I’ve led as the instructor. Recently in fact, I pointed out a remarkable connection made within one student’s poem. I remember telling the student that even if he didn’t do that intentionally it was still brilliant, and he should take ownership of it (and further develop it).

If you’ve read other posts of mine, you probably know that I like poets to take some responsibility for their words. I want them to actually intend something, and I want to be able to connect with that intention without needing footnotes or a backseat driver. That of course doesn’t mean I’m against the mystery and discovery involved in good poems. I’m not advocating literalness. On the contrary, we work in images, metaphor and other mystical herbs that scare most readers away. But if intention counts for nothing, then I don’t really know why I work so hard at this.

Yes, there are times when the perfect word or perfect image comes to me, and I may wonder why a perfect word or perfect image won’t come for another poem. If I put the same amount of effort into it, why don’t they both work out equally well, intent be damned?

I suppose I could ask the same thing about fishing. Two days or two weeks in a row I may fish the same stretch of trout stream, applying the same techniques, casting the same flies, and come away with completely different results. There’s a lot of craft, a bit of science and a touch of alchemy to both endeavors.

That’s the mystery, of course, and probably the subconscious is involved somehow, and maybe the wine or coffee I was drinking at the time. Robbins isn’t willing to give much credit to the subconscious in those situations, so we’re left with just the wine. This is a craft after all, right? I could throw out intention if we were talking about reading tea leaves, but poetry isn’t quite so random, usually. Trout fishing also is a lot less random now than when I first started doing it, but the trout still have the edge.

Anyhow, I have no answer, or at least not an easy one. Maybe that’s why I like poetry so much better than math. And fishing so much better than, well, almost anything. If there’s no single answer, then you can’t be wrong.

This is the time of year in which people make lists. I’ve already done a few of these  Best of … etc. stories for my day job, but here’s my poetry list for 2011. You’ll notice that many of these books are not new, but they were new to me this year, which is good enough for my list. You may also notice some themes here. Pennsylvania poets are over-represented because I like supporting people from my own state. We grow damn fine writers here. In addition, you may notice that I have some kind of connection to several of the authors here for a similar reason to the above trend—I like to support the writers I know or have met in person. Poetry is a hand-to-hand business, so getting to meet or know many writers personally is a wonderful benefit.

The Devastation by Jill Alexander Essbaum (Cooper Dillon Books)

“I have sawed through my sorrows

Like a jeweler would facet quartz.”

I came across this book by accident. After reading one of Essbaum’s poems in Poetry and hearing her on a JP Dancing Bear podcast, I noticed this chapbook on a list of titles available at Cooper Dillon (I was preparing to send them my manuscript). Rather than charge a reading fee, Cooper Dillon asks submitting authors to purchase a book. The editors rejected my manuscript, but the wonderful little book was worth it anyway This was a bit of an odd book, and it took me a while to get into the motions of the poems, but once the flow set in and the sort-of narrative began to unfold for me, I found myself liking this volume very much.

The Beds by Martha Rhodes (Autumn House Press)

“           This is a dare-not-

venture-into place

and so persists, tannic and idle”

I heard her at a Bucks County Community College reading. Like Essbaum’s book, The Beds is an entire story, or multiple related stories, strung together in a sequence of poems. They’re mostly short lyrics with sharp edges and piercing language. You haven’t read anything like this before.

Show and Tell by Jim Daniels (University of Wisconsin Press)

“Let’s taste the moon’s

clean white meat.”

Here’s another Pennsylvania poet (from Pittsburgh) and also a fellow Bowling Green MFA alum. This collection brings together many of Daniels’ Digger poems plus lots of other great works, many based on a working-class mythology plus poems about family and modern domesticity, all with a subdued and lovely word craft.

Spit Back a Boy by Iain Haley Pollock (University of Georgia Press)

“And all our sadness will be old Arkansas,

rural and misspoken, its roads smudged

by the fog’s blue prints,”

Here’s another writer I met at a Bucks County Community College reading, and he’s also local to the Philadelphia area.  The voice and style varies a lot in this collection showing broad influence, but overall there’s a richly dynamic use of language in here. This collection contains one of the most moving poems I’d read all year: Blue Note 53428. If you only buy one book on this list, buy this one.

The History of Permanence by Gary Fincke (Stephen F. Austin University Press)

“           There’s always an excess that wants let loose.

For example, what are your bedrooms downhill from?

Each and every one of you live below something,

Even if it’s simply a cloudless, benign sky.”

This Pennsylvania poet, from Selinsgrove (Susquehanna University) works in a mostly narrative mode, but I like the more lyric poems in this collection best. I’ve met Fincke a few times (he was one my sister’s teachers 20 years ago), once or twice at readings, and then just a few years ago when I sat in on a session he taught at a writers’ conference.

Gravedigger’s Birthday by BJ Ward (North Atlantic Books)

“As children we learned our shadow

is a darkness we never totally shake”

I picked up this book at a writers’ conference in November after taking two sessions conducted by the author. There are fantastic poems in this collection, mostly focused on family and the speaker looking back at a sometimes troubled childhood. There are marvelously insightful poems here, but more than that, there’s the writer’s masterful use of the poet’s tools. This collection is from 2002, and I certainly hope there’s a new one soon.

The Half-Finished Heaven by Tomas Transtromer/translater by Robert Bly (Graywolf Press)

“It’s like the child who falls asleep in terror

listening to the heavy thump of his heart.”

I don’t know why it took a Nobel prize for me to pay attention to Transtromer. I wish I’d started reading him years ago—but better late than never. It’s no wonder Robert Bly was attracted to translate these—they share a lot of his love for personal mythologies. What interests me most are the rich images and dynamic use of contrasts and tone shifts. As a person with some Swedish heritage, I should be doing a better job of supporting poets form the motherland.

Holding Company by Major Jackson (Norton)

“Whichever way our shoulders move, there’s joy.

Make a soft hollow noise. We’ve our own hourglass

and no one else to blame.”

This collection actually took me a while to warm up to. I’d read many of his poems in journals over the years, but Holding Company offers a completely different kind of poem than what I was expecting. I later learned in an interview that the shift was intentional. Anyway, these poems, somewhat based on the sonnet form, can be surrealist, and lyric, and sometimes difficult to approach, but most exhibit a wonderful inner logic and gorgeous revelations.

Now That My Father Lies Down Beside Me by Stanley Plumly (Ecco)

“           The last thing you want to hear is

the sound of your own worn heart. It has a signature,

a silence, like a voice or fingerprint, the heart

line of a the graph the abstract of a mountain range”

I bought Plumly’s collection Boy on a Step years ago when it first came out and loved it then. I came across this 2000 selected book in a used bookstore in Doylestown PA a few months ago and had to snatch it up. Plumly’s richness of language is up there with James Wright, Richard Hugo and Robert Lowell.

When You Become Snow by Doris Ferleger (Finishing Line Press)

“What will I do with all this Splendor you left me?”

I loved Ferleger’s first book, Big Silences In a Year of Rain (reviewed here), but this collection is even better. Much of it follows the path of loss and grieving, but the poems are not given up to that. Ferleger’s poems completely own their subject matter and their worlds and exhibit a power and directness that’s really stunning. When you read this, turn immediately to page 14 for For Example.

Poetry In Person by Edited Alexander Neubaur (Knopf)

This is not a book of poetry, but rather the transcripts of classes conducted by Pearl London at the New School in which her guests were some of the most important poets of the 20th century. London died in 2003, but her recordings of the classes were discovered and turned into this amazing book. Each class begins with the guest poet talking about one of his or her recent poems, and then a Q&A discussion follows about how the poem evolved. Sometimes we even get to see multiple drafts of the poem. Included guests are Maxine Kumin, Stanley Plumly, June Jordan, Galway Kinnell, C.K. Williams … it just goes on like that.

 Also, I hope you add my book, The Trouble with Rivers, to your favorites of 2012. You can get it here or directly from me at upcoming readings or workshops which I’ll announce on this blog.

Louis Mckee, a fixture in the Philadelphia poetry scene, passed away Monday November 20th. Coincidentally that same day I had sent him an email about a poem of his published in Rattle in 2001.

I only personally knew him through correspondence, letters and emails, and an article he generously wrote for me, but I knew him much better I think through his poetry. The December 3rd launch reading for the next issue of the Schuylkill Valley Journal will be dedicated to him. It will take place at the Manayunk Art Center. That issue also includes three of his poems.

That poem from Rattle seems appropriate to me now, so I’ll post it here:

A Beautiful Day in September

Today I stood in my back yard

leaning on the cold wrought iron grate

and realized, watching the blue

skies, the slow white clouds

moving behind the old church spire,

that this was a beautiful day,

one that I should remember,

and it made me smile to know

that I could know such things,

and sad, too, to know that

I would know so few more.

I wish I had paid more attention

when I was young; that I had

looked up more, instead of straight on.

Two children bounce a ball

back and forth, dance

to a familiar song on their radio.

The woman next door kneels

in her small victory garden

gathering last tomatoes,

and peppers, too, it looks like.

A pretty young woman waits

on the corner for a bus

and a mischievous breeze

sweeps her long chestnut hair

away from her settling hand,

away from her cigarette;

she moves in her own sweet

dance, reaching wonderfully

to hold it all together.

That’s all I’m trying to do.

I love the combination of gratitude with regret and awe in this poem, characteristics which surface frequently in his work.

Also, here’s a link to an interview with Lou on the Mad Poet’s Blog.

His 1987 collection No Matter, was just released by Seven Kitchens Press yesterday. You can find it here. We all wish he was around to enjoy the new publication.

Below is an announcement sent from Eileen D’Angelo of the Mad Poets Society:

Dear Friends,

With a sad and heavy heart, I am writing to let you know that our friend and Philadelphia poet, Louis McKee, died yesterday, November 21st.

A dear friend of so many of us on the Philadelphia poetry scene, Lou was most definitely one of its greatest voices. His passing is a great personal loss, as I know it is a great loss to us all. It is an understatement to say that he will be missed by many.

Plans for a memorial service are underway.

Sincerely, Eileen

Here’s a fine remembrance article on McKee written by poet  Fox Chase poet G.E. Reutter.

Louis McKee (born July 31, 1951, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) has been a fixture of the Philadelphia poetry scene since the early 70s. He is the author of Schuylkill County (Wampeter, 1982), The True Speed of Things (Slash & Burn, 1984), and fourteen other collections. More recently, he has published River Architecture: Poems from Here & There 1973-1993 (Cynic, 1999), Loose Change (Marsh River Editions, 2001), and a volume in the Pudding House Greatest Hits series. Gerald Stern has called his work “heart-breaking” and “necessary,” while William Stafford has written, “Louis McKee makes me think of how much fun it was to put your hand out a car window and make the air carry you into quick adventures and curlicues. He is so adept at turning all kinds of sudden glimpses into good patterns.” Naomi Shihab Nye says, “Louis McKee is one of the truest hearts and voices in poetry we will ever be lucky to know.”

Near Occasions of Sin, a collection issued in 2006 by Cynic Press, has been praised by Brendan Kennelly: “I really admire, and like, deeply, Louis McKee’s poems. They have two qualities I love – clarity and candour. And they often tell stories even as they evoke mysteries of being. And they engage a great deal with people. “The Soldier,” for example, is stunning for its pure drama. Then, he is a moving, complex love-poet, at once passionate and reserved. McKee’s poems are like flashes of spirit rooted in the body. He never hides behind, or in, obscurity. Near Occasions of Sin is utterly unpretentious because his genius (I think he has that) is so real; “I am content with this,” he says at the end of “Failed Haiku,” and this readiness to be himself, in all his complexity and simplicity, is, I think, the basis of the appeal of this most unusual and attractive book. Sometimes, McKee talks to his reader and it is like talking to a next-door neighbor (that’s what I mean by candour in these poems). Also, they sound like songs at times-winged, humane, vulnerable.”

Philip Dacey, writing about McKee’s poetry in Schuylkill Valley Journal (#24, spring, 2007) says, “It is the essence of McKee’s work to be rich in artifice and craftsmanship and informed poetic strategies while at the same time consistently brave in its presentation of two confrontations: a person’s with himself and that person’s with the world outside himself. To read McKee is to witness drama and struggle; if the art is hard-won, the human victories are, too.”

Warren Woessner, in the American Book Review (Jan/Feb 2007, Vol 28, No. 2), writes that McKee’s poems have a “surprising honesty…. In this era of superconfessional hubris, we are told that no topic is off-limits, but, if this is so, why are so many of these poems startling? Picasso said, “art is not truth,” and I know that to be true, but it is important to the force of these poems that I can believe that the poet is giving us his stories straight up.”

McKee was a longtime editor of the Painted Bride Quarterly. During his tenure, he edited three special issues, celebrating the work of Etheridge Knight and John Logan, as well as a retrospective, 20th-anniversary volume of the PBQ. He currently operates Banshee Press and edited the magazine One Trick Pony until its demise in 2007.

Louis McKee[edit] Bibliography

Schuylkill County (Wampeter Press, Green Harbor, MA 1982)[1]

The True Speed of Things (Slash & Burn Press, Philadelphia, PA 1984) (Reprinted: Nightshade Press, Troy, ME 1986)[1]

Safe Water (Slash & Burn Press, Philadelphia, PA 1986)

No Matter (Pig In a Poke Press, Pittsburgh, PA 1987)

Oranges (M.A.F. Press, Portlandville, NY 1989)

Angelus -a broadside issue (Lilliput Review, Pittsburgh, PA 1990)

Three Poems -a chapbook (Verse Press, Narberth, PA 1993)

Last Seen -a pamphlet (Red Pagoda Press, Reading, PA 1999)

River Architecture: Poems From Here & There: A Selected Poems 1973-1993 (Cynic Press, Philadelphia, PA 1999)[1]

Right as Rain (Nova House Press, Rosemont, PA 2000)

Loose Change (Marsh River Editions, Marshfield, WI 2001)[1]

Greatest Hits 1971-2001 (Pudding House Press, Johnstown, OH 2002)

Near Occasions of Sin (Cynic Press, Philadelphia, PA 2006)[1]

Marginalia (Translations from the Old Irish) (Adastra Press, Easthampton, MA 2008)

Still Life (Foothills, Kanona, NY, 2008)

Jamming (The League of Laboring Poets, San Clemente, CA, 2008)

[edit] As editor

Etheridge Knight: A Celebration (A special issue of the Painted Bride Quarterly-PBQ, Philadelphia, PA 1988)

John Logan (A special issue of the Painted Bride Quarterly-PBQ, Philadelphia, PA 1990)

PBQ: A Poetry Retrospective 1973-1993 (A special issue of the Painted Bride Quarterly-PBQ, Philadelphia, PA 1993)

References

PA 1984) (Reprinted: Nightshade Press, Troy, ME 1986)[1]

Safe Water (Slash & Burn Press, Philadelphia, PA 1986)

No Matter (Pig In a Poke Press, Pittsburgh, PA 1987)

Oranges (M.A.F. Press, Portlandville, NY 1989)

Angelus -a broadside issue (Lilliput Review, Pittsburgh, PA 1990)

Three Poems -a chapbook (Verse Press, Narberth, PA 1993)

Last Seen -a pamphlet (Red Pagoda Press, Reading, PA 1999)

River Architecture: Poems From Here & There: A Selected Poems 1973-1993 (Cynic Press, Philadelphia, PA 1999)[1]

Right as Rain (Nova House Press, Rosemont, PA 2000)

Loose Change (Marsh River Editions, Marshfield, WI 2001)[1]

Greatest Hits 1971-2001 (Pudding House Press, Johnstown, OH 2002)

Near Occasions of Sin (Cynic Press, Philadelphia, PA 2006)[1]

Marginalia (Translations from the Old Irish) (Adastra Press, Easthampton, MA 2008)

Still Life (Foothills, Kanona, NY, 2008)

Jamming (The League of Laboring Poets, San Clemente, CA, 2008)

As editor

Etheridge Knight: A Celebration (A special issue of the Painted Bride Quarterly-PBQ, Philadelphia, PA 1988)

John Logan (A special issue of the Painted Bride Quarterly-PBQ, Philadelphia, PA 1990)

PBQ: A Poetry Retrospective 1973-1993 (A special issue of the Painted Bride Quarterly-PBQ, Philadelphia, PA 1993)

follow on Twitter @GrantPoetCore

New Musehouse Workshop

Looking for something literary to do on Wednesday evenings (if you’re in the Philadelphia area)? I’ll be leading a new poetry workshop at the Musehouse Writing Center in Chestnut Hill (down the street from the Chestnut Hill Hotel). This workshop will be for beginner to intermediate poets. Honestly, I don’t know what that means, as I think we’re all a still beginner poets each time we sit down to write, but at least don’t show up planning to get into pedagogical arguments. It’s a six-week class meeting every Wednesday 7-8:30 beginning Dec. 7th. There’s a cost for this workshop, but right now I don’t know what it is. I think it’s $120. When I find out I’ll post it here.

If you want to learn more about the Musehouse Center and its events, go here.

The catalog description is here:

In this session we’ll discuss what makes poems work and where good ideas go off course and where to take risks. Elements including image, sound, line breaks and form will all be addressed. Participants will discuss poetry craft, practice writing prompts and explore techniques for discovering poems in everyday life. A wide variety of poems and poets will be read, and students will write, share and discuss their own poems in class.

follow on Twitter @GrantPoetCore

At Prairie Schooner, “about 40 graduate readers look through the submissions, determining if they are eligible for the magazine. “

from an article in the Daily Nebraskan.

Prairie Schooner does not currently accept electronic submissions (this is changing soon) nor charge for submissions.

By the way, I’m not judging, just pointing it out (I was a screener for Mid-American Review when I was a grad student). This is a question often discussed in writing circles and becomes more interesting as more journals adopt submission fees–see previous post for complete context. I know a lot of writers worry that a 24-year-old grad student may not be the best judge of what literature is “eligible.” I know I’m a very different reader than I was 20 years ago.

The Nov/Dec issue of Poets and Writers magazine ran a story on what may be one of the most important issues facing the literary community, or at least the literary journal community, today. The article discussed the emerging trend of literary journals charging writers for content submissions.

Several journals, including the Missouri Review, Ploughshares, Hunger Mountain and the New England Review charge a fee of $2-$3 for writers to send in work for possible publication. Some, like the Missouri Review, only apply that fee to online submissions while others require the fee from all unsolicited submissions. None of the journals mentioned in the article or in online conversations that followed it charge authors for solicited submissions.

The fee issue created a little hurricane in several blogs and forums for obvious reasons. At one point a private listserv conversation by editors belonging to the Council of Literary Magazines and Presses (CLMP) was made public, eliciting more outrage from both writers who read the emails and the editors who (rightly) didn’t want their debate on the issue made public.

Now of course I know that times are tough for literary journals. They’re facing three primary problems. First, funding for literature (particularly in university-affiliated journals) has been significantly cut. Second, the workload continues to increase as the number of people who want to get published (partially fed by expanding MFA programs) gets overwhelming (one editor said he receives about 1,000 submissions a month). Finally, while interest in getting published increases, subscriptions decrease—less people are buying the journals.

So of course that means that both money and time are stretched thin. I get that. I work in consumer magazine publishing myself. I understand the problem of shrinking staff/resources and shrinking budgets. I never met a dollar I didn’t like. What I don’t understand is how the answer to the problem is to charge the very people whose work publishers should be embracing and without whom they’d have no product to publish.

A few editors commented that they hoped charging writers would limit the amount of submissions they received. So far the results haven’t proved that. If they want to receive less submissions, how about shortening the open submission period? I have trouble understanding a paradigm in which an abundance of artists is perceived as a problem that requires a punitive response.

Do writers expect special treatment when they’re paying for their work to be read? Many journals use interns or grad students to screen their open submissions—I was one of those when I was a grad student 20 years ago, so I know how it works. How long do these readers spend on a submission? Often they only spend a minute or two on a piece, maybe less (and still take six months to respond). In their defense, bad writing singles itself out quickly; however, if a person has paid for the privilege of submitting should that person expect a more thorough reading, maybe even something more than a generic, unsigned rejection form? Maybe a faster response? If you think money doesn’t influence expectations in a relationship then just ask to borrow money from a friend and see what happens.

While I don’t like contest entry fees either, I see a big difference. With contests there’s the promise someone will get a big payoff (hundreds or thousands of dollars in some, book publication). Most literary journals pay little if anything. The most frequent payment is a copy or two of the journal.

A few of the journals who charge fees for unsolicited submissions also note that the acceptance rate for open submissions is less than 1 percent. This means the 99 percent are essentially subsidizing the work of writers who were invited to the journal and didn’t have to pay the submission fee. How is that fair?

On the Facebook page of an editor on a well-know literary pub (a pub that doesn’t charge fees) I made the comment that a journal that needs to charge its rejected writers in order to survive needs to examine its business model and maybe rethink its product into something people are more likely to pay for. Or the product could be redesigned into something that cost less to produce/mail.

I was quickly shot down by another editor for the blasphemy of equating an art journal to a business or product. I understand the sensitivity considering the political climate and all, but what I meant and believe is that if the publication is not able to find a supportive audience without imposing a submission tax then that is a publication that needs to wonder about the need it is serving. I’m not saying a literary journal that’s losing money needs to shut down, but it should think seriously about its place in the community and whether or not it’s doing a good job. If readers aren’t willing to pay for it, is there something wrong with the publication? Is there something wrong with its outreach or marketing?

One of the rationales for charging for online submissions is that the fee of $3 is roughly the same as we’d be paying for postage and envelopes. That may be the case for fiction writers who mail 25 pages at a time, but for poets who mail 5 or 6 pages it’s not even close. And even if the costs were the same, why does the saving in postage now have to go to the journal? Why does a journal get to profit from the opportunity to reject you? Let’s be honest, with acceptance rates of less than 1 percent, they’re profiting from rejection.

So if ultimately the problem is a lack of paying readers, how about solving that problem rather than creating a new ethical problem?

One of the problems with submission fees is that they inadvertently discourage subscriptions. Hopefully most writers feel some sense of obligation to the journals they’re targeting and especially the journals they’re accepted by. Hopefully that sense of obligation occasionally results in a purchase or subscription. But with submission fees the writer feels that he or she has already met that obligation, but at a much lower cost (and without the benefit of receiving the journal). Why feel obligated to buy a copy when the writer has already done his part by sending in a $3 rejection fee?

Right now I’m subscribing to seven  journals at a cost of about $95 a year. I send out about 30 poetry submissions a year. From some of the editors’ comments on the leaked listserv I should be subscribing to 30 journals a year. Is that really reasonable? Next year I’ll re-subscribe to about half of those journals and subscribe to three or four new ones so over a number of years I’ll be able to sample a wide range.

Some editors suggest the option of only allowing subscribers to submit. The problem with that is that it creates a closed little club. The journal turns from a public forum to a private one, and it greatly reduces the pool of qualified writers.

I do recognize the problem. Really I do. But the burden shouldn’t be put on the people whose work creates the journal. Even more, the burden shouldn’t be unevenly put on the people who are least likely (due to high rejection rates) to be a part of the journal’s forum. If journals look at this as a reader problem, not a revenue problem, then they won’t leap to the most vulnerable population available to be exploited. They’ll instead be forced to look at themselves, their audience and their mission and come up with creative solutions to the problem.

So far I personally haven’t faced this situation since none of the journals I’m interested in charge fees, but many editors seem to believe that the fee model is bound to become the norm. I’m not sure I believe that, but I’m interested in hearing what other people think.

Read comments from the Missouri Review here.

Read the opinion of Gian Lombardo, editor of Quale Press, here.

Go here for the blog of Laura Maylene Walter, author of the Poets and Writers article.

I’ll offer a few suggestions, some my own and some I’ve seen or read about, in a follow-up post. Please add your comments below. If you believe this is an important topic, please forward, post, tweet and share.

follow on Twitter @GrantPoetCore

Apollo and the muses.

I was the featured reader at a bookstore reading series recently, and after the reading, the host asked members of the audience (all two of them, I think) if anyone had any questions for me. One gentleman raised his hand and asked that common, yet dreaded question, “what inspires your poems?”

Wow, that’s both an important and maddening question. I believe most serious poets will agree with me, that inspiration, at least in terms of writing, is a horrible and troubling concept. You might as well ask what inspires me to wake up in the morning. I do it because that’s what needs to be done at that moment.

It’s pretty common for non writers to believe that writers seek out inspiration or wait to get touched by a divine muse. But that doesn’t happen. Not once in any of my creative writing classes did the instructor talk about how to be inspired. Instead we talked about line tension, metaphors, pacing, and sometimes whether buffalo or pork sausage was better on pizza (buffalo usually won out).

Perhaps it’s because inspiration is just such a lousy word. What I think the questioner really wanted to know was where I got the ideas for my poems (sort of the same question, but different enough to be important).

Anyway, my answer was words. I get excited by words, word images, word sounds and textures and word shadows. When I read poems, I read with a pencil. I check, circle and underline words and phrases that get me excited.

When I talk about poems with other people in my monthly workshop group, we don’t talk about inspiration; we talk about the words–which ones are working for the poem and which ones are working against it.

When I get to Robert Lowell’s line “under the chalk-dry and spar spire / of the Trinitarian Church” I get tingles. The way the consonants first choke up my throat and then the ps stumble out the lips, well that’s just marvelous.

I love William Stafford’s “On the near pine rain hangs / the way I suppose it hangs / on the far” because those words both create a clear little picture for me as well as hold shadows and levels of significance.

And when Jane Hirshfield writes of a redwood tree: “Already the first branch-tips brush at the window. / Softly, calmly, immensity taps at your life” I shudder with a little bit of fear for all of us.

Is that inspiration?

To answer his question I referred to one of the poems I’d presented earlier that evening and pointed out one of the words in it: andirons. I have andirons in my fireplace, but it’s not a word I use regularly, or ever. Yet I like the sound of it. It sounds rugged, useful, a little romantic and a little archaic. The simple answer is that I was in a mood to write and I was looking for a word to get me started, so I picked that one. “That word, if you will, was the inspiration,” I told him.

Of course, the poem is not about andirons.

My dog sometimes sleeps in front of the fireplace, so I knew I could put the dog in there someplace. Without wood, there’s no fire, and without forests there’s no wood. From there a logical structure was born, and a poem was built from that.

I had no idea where the poem was going, what, if any, primary theme would emerge or any significant plan, but I had a few words to start, and I let those, along with the sounds and connotative shadows, dictate the words that followed.

That’s not inspiration, that’s process.

When I was in college I lived a couple of years with a painter. Sometimes he’d pass me a canvas and we’d paint together. And once again, the creation was about process, not inspiration. He’d put down a line or shape and let that stroke define the next one.

Sometimes subject matter starts first. I may tell myself I want to write about a specific experience or incident, but I still let process do most of the driving. Rarely do I know what exactly I’m going to write until I’m in the middle of spelling the word. That discovery is a large part of the thrill for me. Even now. Themes and patterns will emerge, sense will come forth, and then you give it more shape in the firming up process of revision.

In his book about writing, The Triggering Town, poet Richard Hugo makes similar suggestions: “Depend of rhythm, tonality, and the music of language to hold things together. It is impossible to write meaningless sequences.”

I’m not sure any of that explanation helped this audience member. I hope it helped him appreciate the poems he was hearing, and maybe helped eliminate the stress he felt in trying to “figure out” what the poem was saying. There is no muse. The truth is a lot simpler and a lot more complicated than that.


Rae Armantrout and Duran DuranI moderate a poetry group that meets once a month in a quiet part of an Irish pub that’s hospitable enough to us writers that the manager will turn down the music and keep other patrons out of our way. At our meetings, after we eat and chat about whatever we’ve been reading that month, we pass around our poems for the rest of the group to critique, question, praise … whatever.

One of the things that always happens at these gatherings, and any workshop I’ve ever been in, is that someone, often many people, will pick at the things they don’t “get,” phrases that don’t seem to have another internal anchor, things that are too obscure or just weird for the reader to process and move confidently to the next line. It happened to my most recent poem, and I expected and welcomed it. I had a sense that the poem wandered from allusion to allusion without enough helpful breadcrumbs, but I needed some other eyeballs to help point that out.

Sometimes in situations when the poem is presented sans breadcrumbs, a reader may say “I don’t get that, but I like it anyway.” Usually that’s either because the selection held some other quality that overrode the need for explication—maybe an image was stirring or the cadence satisfying enough that the reader could forgive the fact that it actually made no external sense. I’m OK with that sometimes and probably guilty of it too. But in most cases I really do believe a poem that defies clarity is a failure. The poem has to talk to me, so if its point of reference is buried in the author’s back pocket rather than on the page, I lose interest fairly quickly.

By clarity, I’m not talking hallmark clarity or Billy Collins or Mary Oliver. The poem doesn’t have to live on the surface to be a success, but there has to be a level of connection between the reader and author. If you loan me your shoes, and they’re close enough to my size, I can walk in them. If they’re 5 sizes off, we’re not going to get anywhere together.

Which brings me to Rae Armantrout and Duran Duran.

Laura Hinton blogged an interview with Armantrout on Chant de la Sirene. The first half of the interview concerns a poem of Armantrout’s called “Soft Money,” which Hinton referred to praisingly as illusive. I think of voles as illusive (cute too) or riches and fame (for me, definitely illusive), but I’m not sure I want someone to complement my work by calling it hard to grasp and misleading.

  • Read Soft Money here.

So what happens in the blog, I think, is a little funny. Hinton described how she discussed the poem in her class and asked the poet to explain how the work came about. The answer surprised Hinton. Apparently the poem is a response to, and even references, the ‘80s Duran Duran song “Rio” and its objectification of women.

Hinton didn’t get that at all—completely missed the point:

“Wow. I don’t think we got all that in our classroom attempts at interpretation. But we knew “Soft Money” was a good poem. And that’s something that’s so interesting about your work to me. Your poems – most of them – hit me as so viscerally real, so witty about the “reality” we live with. I experience them as profound, and yet I often don’t know why. Sometimes I study the poem for awhile, and I find these puns on words that make the lines so rich. They may, in fact, be puns punning on the concept of “meaning” itself. We are forced to ask: Meaning… does it “mean,” what is it to mean, or is “it” (the “meaning” of the poem) just content to be?”

The fact that Hinton didn’t “get” the poem is no surprise. Much of Armantrout’s verse is written in a similar mode as if most of the poem exists in a slightly separate dimension, and we, the reader, just have to make our best guesses. Armantrout apparently doesn’t object to that, as she says in another interview (also about Soft Money) that the poem could be about a whole lot of things. Maybe she’s offering us one-size-fits-all shoes, like flip flops.

What bothers me about that is that the poet seems to be taking no responsibility for what she’s done—or what’s she’s trying to communicate. In the original interview, Hinton backtracks to Archibald MacLeish’s “a poem should not mean, but be.”

Well, I want the poem to more than be, I want it to be something. And, indeed, after the Her Name is Rio revelation, it is something. I see it clearly now, as I’m sure did Hinton, but not until then. Until then it was just a word game, a guess-me-if-you-can game.

OK, now, I’m getting into clarity then. In her essay “Feminist Poetics and the Meaning of Clarity”  Armantrout writes  “Is something clear when you understand it or when it looms up, startling you?” The particular poem that got me here, to me, is neither clear, nor does it loom and startle. But that’s just me. I won’t argue with Armantrout’s honest success—she’s a poet who’s books sell, a lot, and she’s won the biggest awards in the business. But this issue about clarity comes up a lot, sometimes veiled by other things, in the writers’ group I participate in and I’m sure in similar workshop’s across the country.

What do you do when you the poem in front of you fails to communicate? Does the poem fail or does the reader fail? I suppose that often will depend as much on the poet at the reader. In Armantrout’s case (as with many other L-A-N-G-U-A-G-E poets), clarity just isn’t on her list of important things. What that poet wants is a reader able to respond to, something else. I’m not sure what, but won’t say it’s wrong.

I’m not suggesting that a poem has to mean something—a successful poem already is its own best way for expressing whatever it is that it’s expressing. Often they reject explicit interpretation, and should, in the same way you can’t interpret a photograph of a Chinese lantern. It’s a lantern, not something else. The photo may create feelings in me, may engender an emotional response, memory or awareness, but it doesn’t mean anything more than lantern. And I’m also not trying to jump all over Armantrout. Most of her poems do not require a deep reading of Duran Duran in order to know that they’re lanterns.

So is the responsible thing, then, as a reader and workshop participant, to respect the lanternness in each poem and resist the temptation to point out a work’s lack of Rio or do we fall back on the old, “I don’t get it” response when the poem has not turned on the light for us?

  • For more of Armantrout’s commentary on Soft Money go here.

follow on Twitter @GrantPoetCore

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.