Scott,
As others have pointed out, only one major poetry magazine, along with very few lesser ones, has the policy in question (i.e. "Work that has appeared on-line is considered to have been previously published and should not be submitted."). Thus, any reaction is likely to be regarded as an overreaction. From my dealings with Fred Sasaki at Poetry magazine I can confirm that they are deadly serious about this antediluvian policy. While Poetry may be a gorilla too big for some to ignore, we just have to wait patiently until they decide to join the 21st Century. Don't hold your breath, though. In the meantime, there are other fine periodicals to which one can submit and subscribe.
I agree with Rose, Carol, Michael and others who encourage pruning. Yes, I know it's a PITA but having members delete the poems only works if none of the critics have duplicated the text--something we wouldn't want to discourage since it would preclude line-by-line critiques (and reposting the poem to show which version we're dealing with). Killing titles is useless; knowing that titles often change, searchers can and will use key phrases within the poem.
FWIW, a software solution, automatically deleting poem threads that have been dormant for 7 (or whatever) days, would be quite simple, requiring about three lines of code.
I concur with Quincy's points #1 and #3. If we were advising someone new to poetry where to go for a grounding in and discussion of contemporary verse where better to send them? As they say in the ad biz, "our product is our best advertisement"; allowing lurkers is how we get the discriminating new members we'll value most. My only disagreement is tangential: IMHO, the IBPC is a brilliant idea horribly executed (please excuse the pun). Their PR and judging...well, let's not go there. In my view, the more ways (not just venues but ways) we have of recognizing the best poems being produced the better. And, yes, I understand that this is a minority opinion.
Signed,
Colin
|
Threaded Mode
