Aha. So now we get to the heart of the matter. :)

Sorry, but you've got to know how that sounds.

Really? I think I&T prints too many poems that have that canned, safe, B-list feeling. On the other hand, the stuff I've read in Poetry by people I'm familiar with has often been my favorite stuff of theirs. Wendy's "North of Mist" and Tim's "Mortal Stakes," for example.

I'm not saying I like everything in Poetry, I'm just saying that if Iambs & Trochees is your idea of the best, then of course you're going to be disappointed in a magazine with a completely different (read, more adventurous) aesthetic.


[This message has been edited by Rose Kelleher (edited July 24, 2006).]

Rose,

I'm not saying I&T is the best, I'm just saying the level of formal poetry they publish is far better than what you see in "Poetry". Which is not saying much.

And, sorry to say, the pieces published by "our" people in general are inferior to pieces published by them elsewhere.

BTW, I'm certainly not criticizing them for not accepting my stuff!!!

You say:

"I'm just saying that if Iambs & Trochees is your idea of the best, then of course you're going to be disappointed in a magazine with a completely different (read, more adventurous) aesthetic."

Isn't "adventurous" a matter of opinion? My take would be: "(read, more pretentious) aesthetic".

Yes, pretentious. The odd piece, now and then, is good. Most of it is pseudo-intellectual, incomprehensible, incoherent "chopped prose" of the sort you read in countless other journals. And I HAVE tried, I HAVE given it a chance. It's my opinion only. But my opinion is valid, I don't think you should imply I am lacking or missing something. That's a tad condescending.

But, of course, we can agree to disagree.

Marion

Of course your opinion is valid, probably a lot more valid than mine, if qualifications come into it. But if you can imply that anyone who likes Poetry better than I&T is a dupe mindlessly applauding a naked emperor, then others should be allowed to offer their differing points of view.

Cal Holly when I get out of your way not yet two and also there's one in Alex's office Rose,

I don't think my opinion is more valid than yours or anyone else's--in fact I respect yours immensely.

But my opinion, or impression if you will, about why "Poetry" is so popular, is the only explanation that makes sense to ME! And I expressed it in a GENERAL way, not directed at any individual on this thread, who, I acknowledge, may disagree with me. And if someone expressed the same feelings toward a journal I liked (in fact some critters did!), I would not take umbrage But if a remark is addressed toward me personally, I feel offended.

That's my final two cents. I'm out of this discussion.

Marion

Piping up to say that I too enjoyed the humor issue. I thought that Peter Campion's fake "takes" were screamingly funny in parts. Peter Blegvad's cartoon "POET!" is going up on my refrigerator. I thought the hit/miss ratio in the poems was very high--higher, in fact, than in the Serious issues. Even the few versified jokes struck me as, for the most part, pretty fresh.

Two general things stuck out to me.

First, the Humor issue is the issue where Poetry seems to set aside its new mission to bring poetry to a wider audience and become, for one issue, an unabashed clique. Exhibit A: W.S. di Piero's fake letters to the editor don't make any sense unless you remember Franz Wright's unhinged ranting of a year or two ago. I actually enjoy the clubbiness of that gesture, and of the Humor issue. The clubbiness is there whether poets acknowledge it or not, and I think that putting it on display, mocking it in the open, is healthy.

Second, the Humor issue is the issue that sanctions unabashed delight. Many of the poems in the Serious issues seem utterly leaden. (It's that case with most magazines, I think.) What was it Oscar Wilde said about sincerity being the death of art? Something like that. Anyway, if you ask me, Poetry should be Peotry year-round, if only because it would mean they were consistently publishing verse that seeks to be intelligible and entertaining. I suppose my main complaint about the Humor issue is that it puts those qualities in a ghetto and marks them as frivolous.

--CS


[This message has been edited by Clay Stockton (edited July 24, 2006).]

I let my subscription lapse, but I enjoyed it while I got it. Like any magazine, I wasn't captivated by everything (or even half) of what was in it, but it had some quite good stuff.

I also wanted to add, a little belatedly, that choosing to buy mostly form-friendly publications is not a political decision, it is an aesthetic decision, as many people have strong criteria, meter included, of what makes a good poem.

Not so belatedly, I believe that if your primary concern when deciding where to spend your poetry dollars is that the journal must print poems that have consistent meter, I'm not sure how that requirement qualifies the decision as aesthetic rather than political. The ingredients on a can of Beanee Weenees can turn out metrically consistent. A lot of bad, bad poetry can (and does) too.

And, if you believe that metrical consistency primarily, or perhaps exclusively, gives poems some sort of huge head start in the race for "Good Poem" status, well... very likely there's quite a lot of music you're missing. So with my blessing (for what that's worth, lol) please do subscribe to journals like I&T, and please do continue thinking that Poetry caters to pretentious eggheads who just don't 'get it'. Whatever's easiest for you. Because it isn't going to make any difference in the end.

There's a really intelligent group of people here, but I have to say, the rigidity (and abyssal depth) of the conservative POVs sort of shocks me. I'm not being a troll, not on purpose. I'm just sayin'.

jack

The best things Christian has been publishing are Kay Ryan and Alicia Stallings. Oh, sure, he publishes me and Mason and Gwynn and Rhina and many another Spherian. But he really gives Kay and Aliki a lot of ink. And that, to me, is the distinguishing characteristic of the magazine. Still, I'd rather read Jared Carter and the crew in Iambs and Trochees, and I have let my subscription to Poetry lapse.

Jack,

You are mistaking form-friendly to form-only. Poetry Mag IS form-friendly, whether people its the content or not. Sure, form-only could be seen as political -- "I don't want to see that free verse trash" or some such thought. But to subscribe to magazines that endorse a no-form agenda seems to be more political than ignoring magazines like that which are stuck in the revolutions of the twentieth century.

- Daniel

Yeah, I think you mentioned it earlier -- that Poetry has published you before. Before Wiman, Parisi was rather fond of Stallings' stuff too (in fact, it was in Parisi's joint where I first read her). And that says a lot, to me, about the high standards for poetry (formal, informal, raisinless, purple polka-dotted) in that magazine.

Any formalist brave (read: talented) enough to compete for space in Poetry and similar venues, I salute you.

jack, shutting up for good, sweartogod

P.S. -- Daniel, we cross-posted: I was ranting sweaty-toothedly at a vague, general "you" that I perceive in the last dozen or so responses of the thread. It was meant as a catch-all, of sorts. Genuinely sorry for the sloppyness of it.

[This message has been edited by jack edwards (edited July 24, 2006).]