Having published a fair number of essays and reviews myself, I agree with all four of Dave's points above. It's good for the art to have intelligent criticism about it. Dana Gioia makes the point that we need more negative criticism--that is, honest assessments that don't puff bad or mediocre poetry. If you can write decent prose and deal intelligently with poetry, it's somewhat easier to publish reviews and criticism than poetry. And as Dave says, it helps establish a relationship with an editor.
Except for a two year stint as an occasional reviewer for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, our state's major newspaper, I've almost never written an essay or even a review because an editor asked me to. I generally write what I want and then shop it around till someone takes it, which usually isn't too long compared to poetry, where even a really good piece can get rejected twenty times before some perspicacious editor takes it.
I've been trying to stop writing criticism for the last few years to focus strictly on creative work. Sill, I was surprised and pleased at the last West Chester conference to have so many people recognize me as the author of an essay they liked. Nothing quite beats writing a good poem, but think of the great essays by contemporaries you've read and how grateful you are to poet critics like Dana Gioia or Dave Mason and think how you too might delight and instruct readers on some poet or poem you admire. It's rewarding in its own right and might even spread good taste and sense in a field where there's often too little of either.
|
Threaded Mode
