[ginger]

Julie wrote:
...once the poem progresses beyond a certain point of literacy, I don't think the specific flaws are particularly relevant.

I agree. I've read maybe a handful of poems here that were so good I simply wouldn't crit them (expect to say what really moved me). Those poems had achieved that indescribable something that happens when a poem transcends its parts and becomes sort of 'untouchable'. To be honest though, only a very small percentage of the poems I've ever read over my lifetime have had that effect on me.

Richard wrote:
Corny as it sounds, I find that a good poem narrows the gulf between me and another human being AND between the various parts of myself, makes me feel a little less alone, a little less fragmented.

I don't think that's corny at all. Connection is the essence of communication, and what is poetry but a very complex, nuanced, and effective form of communication? I'd argue that it's more effective at establishing a connection between people than speech or prose, because it doesn't constantly employ the same linguistic short cuts that those forms of communication do. (I know I'm probably preaching to the converted here.)

Roger wrote:
...it's important to start by generously bestowing the benefit of the doubt on the poet and his poem.

I'm tempted to ask "Why?" here. They don't call ours the Information Age for nothing. Partly it's a good thing. We have access to more of the good stuff than has historically been possible. The downside is having to sift through all that's available to find the good stuff. I think it benefits both the reader and the writer when we are able to read our favorite authors and newbies on an electronic forum with equally open minds, but I don't see the point in assuming anything, good or bad, beforehand. I think it's a matter of being really honest with oneself. When I was in high school there was this bizzare moral structure built up around band loyalty. The following behaviors reflected poorly on an individual: 1)skipping a song rather than letting the album play through, 2)liking a band's new stuff better than their old stuff, 3)looking less than thoroughly enthralled for the duration of a long, masturbatory solo at a live show. Sounds pretty silly, huh? It made me realize that the only way approach any work of art is on its own merits--but one just can't do that in advance.

I'm not blaming the editors, of course. They get thousands of poems and there are only so many nights by the fireplace, and some of those may be given over to Frost. But it's a shame that the only way a new poet can reliably break through the practical barriers and get a fair and close reading is by being recommended by someone who knows the editor, which generally means that you need to take courses and enroll in MFA programs or otherwise become part of the organized poetry establishment.

I'm led to wonder why editors are so swamped? I think maybe writers have to take more blame for this then they typically do. If writers exercised greater self-control with regard to the number and quality of their submissions, editors would be able to spend more time with each submission. (Though from what I've read you're in good company re: your gripes about 'the poetry establishment'.)

I'm kind of ambivalent about how much sympathy I owe other writers. There are a lot of things in life I might like to do, but will never be good at. I love music, but after 12 years of playing the guitar I'm still no musician. So what? There's no shame in not being a great musician, is there? Reading and writing seem to be my things, so that's where I focus my energies. I think that if one has a passion for literature, and one puts some effort into his or her writing, one is bound to become a decent, even if not thoroughly original writer. But if the passion's not there, as much for reading as for writing, what's encouragement going to do for the would-be writer? And if the passion is there, is the writer going to be detered by a bit of negative criticism?

When I first got here I got some really eloquent and scathing criticism from Gary Keenan. It hurt. That's probably because deep-down I knew he was mostly right. I was a History major then. I'm an English major/Creative Writing minor now. He, and others, made me take my writing more seriously than I was taking it. I could have spent a lifetime collecting rejection slips and blaming those rejections on faceless editors or bad luck, so I'm happy to have been told what's up.

Even if I never publish a word, workshops give me something that publishing may not have to offer: an audience full of poets who are willing to talk back--honestly.

Ginger

Ginger