[Janice D. Soderling]

Yes, it did rather get derailed, didn't it? It's my own fault for stooping to cheap journalistic trick headlines.

Still, I've always preferred the naughty boys, of which there are many here, to the stuffed shirts (not you, NOT YOU, dear Bugsy).

Thx, Nausheen, for actually reading the article which does contain some worthwhile points. We are at least two who found it of use then.

[E. Shaun Russell]

Speaking to the article itself, rather than the pithy sex quote, I don't see much in it that surprises me. I had completely forgotten about the Morton Marr competition though -- I entered in 2007 and 2008, and a quick look at my submission notes shows that the poems I sent are ones that have still not been published, and my 2012 eyes understand why. Actually, I think it was Eratosphere that taught me how poems that may encapsulate a feeling or moment that is of great meaning to the poet may not be poems that appeal to others. I have a feeling that, based on what Spiegelman says, most entrants just send off what they think should appeal to the judges, rather than what will.

Objectivity plays a very important role in one's submission choices. Personally, I used to send them off willy-nilly, with up to 100 poems "out there" at any given time. While it garnered me a fair amount of publication credits overall (i.e.: over the course of a couple years), the overall percentage was low. In the last few years, I've been much more discerning about what poems I send where, and though I now only have three or four submissions out at one time, my acceptance percentage is much higher...and I'm certain that it's because I'm more discerning about what appeals to particular editors.

[John Whitworth]

I show a good few of my poems to a couple of people whose taste I trust. They are far too nice to say 'This one stinks!' but you can see if they are enthusiastic or not. I also run them past my younger daughter. If she's thinks they are the biz then they probably are. I often can't tell, or I can't tell for a bit.

[Susan McLean]

Janice, I read the article. I was rather put off by the condescending attitude it seemed to take to "New Formalists." It is hardly news that not everyone who writes in rhyme and meter does it well, or that even those who can handle the technical challenges cannot all manage to write interesting poems. The editor wants to find evidence that the Morton Marr competition's choices have been good ones, so he points out how many of the winners have gone on to publish first books or win major awards. But of course he has not tried to discover how many of the losers in that competition have done the same. I think it is called "confirmation bias" when researchers only look at results that confirm what they want to hear.

Susan

[John Whitworth]

Yeah, I thought he was a bit sniffy too. I've met these guys. What they've got to be sniffy about, God knows.

[W.F. Lantry]

Janice,

So I actually got through the whole thing. I suppose some readers could be miffed by this section...

"Aristotle was right when he said that of all the gifts the poet must have, the primary one is that of metaphor. The others remain secondary. Without tropes, the forms are mere scaffolding. The building will not stand. Some of the so-called New Formalists have always flaunted their banner with the zealousness of the righteous, believing that they represent the one true catholic church. A church, however, is primarily neither an edifice nor a dogma but a series of instructions for living."

...but I don't have a dog in that particular fight. Besides, he's mostly correct, and he gets a few points for critiquing the dress styles of his congregation.

The ending of the essay seemed to just sputter out, but it did contain this little gem:

"Any ekphrastic poem is ipso facto, even if unconsciously, an ars poetica."

For myself, I think I would go further than that, and say that 'Every poem is an ars poetica.' How that ever turned into a minority position is a complete mystery to me, although its detractors must have sound and sincere arguments in their minds. Still, it's nice to see someone articulating one of its variants in print...

Best,

Bill

[Janice D. Soderling]

We have a folk saying in Sweden "att läsa som fan läser bibeln" "to read like the devil reads the Bible", meaning to look at a text or an argument in order to find things to be miffed about or to show someone the negative sides.

There is probably lots in this article with which one might determinedly take umbrage (yoke, yoke), but I thought it was interesting to look inside the brain of an experienced editor and get the dope on statistics at one of the country's longest-running literary journals.

<- Me

[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Yes, and remember that many editors do not accept simultaneous submissions.

And fewer still are happy with premature submissions.

[Brian Allgar]

I've just (finally) read the entire article, which I found very interesting, extremely well-written, sometimes amusing, and which, in many instances, sounded a note that induced in me a sympathetic resonance.

I hope to come back to it another day, but for the moment, I'd just like to comment on:

One earnest woman raised her hand. “Don’t you think that the Internet is a wonderful thing, because it allows more voices to be heard?” she asked hopefully.

I have long thought the Internet a deplorable thing, because it allows all voices to be heard, however dreary their thoughts and however illiterate their means of expression. Illiteracy is being spread like a virus via the Internet. Indeed, I sometimes think that given the choice between ridding the Internet of paedophilia, and ridding it of those self-satisfied idiots who believe that their incoherent outpourings can have any conceivable interest or value for others - well, I might just go for the latter.

That's my rant for the day. I hope to come back to the poetry later, if anyone's still listening.

[E. Shaun Russell]

Originally Posted by Brian Allgar

I have long thought the Internet a deplorable thing, because it allows all voices to be heard, however dreary their thoughts and however illiterate their means of expression. Illiteracy is being spread like a virus via the Internet.

While I think the Internet is more good than bad (maybe that's a Gen-Xer thing to say?), I have to agree with you on the topic of illiteracy. I've given a lot of thought to what has caused the relatively recent deterioration of spelling and grammar, and I've decided that it's either an international drop in the quality of high school English teachers, or it's the Internet. Occam's razor tells me the latter is more likely.

I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done about it, though. Either we let the English language devolve, or we flunk the students who can't write it properly. Neither course of action seems desirable...