[R. Nemo Hill]

"In short, any competent critic."

Yuck. I think it is precisely that self-confident critical apparatus that is far too often the bulk of what Rick is saying falls out of the frame of the poems themselves and is only a screen for the reviewer's own inevitable subjectivity. Such a critical view without honest subjective experience is dead in the water for many readers. The reverse can be a problem as well, but feeling one's way into the poems of another can be accomplished by an adroit essayist.

Nemo

[Rory Waterman]

Yes: yuck, indeed.

[Quincy Lehr]

There is, of course, another problem with the sample of poems. Let's say that one has a collection with four or five good poems and some insipid stuff for the remaining fifty pages. A publisher's instinct is to go for the "best" poems as he/she sees it, which a review should indicate the spread and try to capture the book holistically. The reprint option is generally pretty bad at that.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Let's say that one has a collection with four or five good poems and some insipid stuff for the remaining fifty pages.

Pls sms me immediately the name of publisher(s) willing to issue such a book. I may just have four or five good ones! I am sure I can dredge up 45 insipid pages. Thanking you in advance, I remain,
Hopeful

[Quincy Lehr]

Dear Ms. Soderling:

We have read your manuscript, but we regret to inform you that we did not find the bulk of your collection insipid enough to publish it at this time. We receive a great many submissions, including many that are modish, by-the-numbers po-biz bore-fests by well-established authors who teach at major universities. We wish you luck in your continued pursuit of unspectacular writing.

Yours sincerely,

The Editors,
Boring Establishment Press
University of Outer Shitfuckistan
U.S.A.

[Janice D. Soderling]

As Lo used to say (and where is she anyway) ROTFLMAO.