[Philip Quinlan]

Oh Lordy,

it was just a passing remark. I think I one time did submit something to Able Muse (can't remember what, but certainly not in expectation of a prize!) It probably wasn't very good.

For the record, prizes and awards of any kind don't interest me in any sphere (no pun intended) of endeavour. In fact, when my boss wanted to nominate me for something, I politely refused.

I wasn't thinking of me, Alex. It just seems to me that journals etc. rely on a great number of people (variously talented, granted) wasting their good time producing and submitting things. But the same old names keep floating to the top, when it's time to dish out the prizes, regardless of whether their achievements are, in reality, greater than anyone else's.

I've come to realise over time that this whole po-world is a bit of a parallel universe, or a TARDIS in reverse (smaller on the inside than it appears from the outside.) And in the end it all comes down to, not what you know, but who you know.

The point of writing poetry for me is simply that. Nice if it's out there for others to enjoy. Rose K has a healthy attitude to that, I think.

I, personally, have a distaste for the competitiveness which seems to permeate this world.

But it's no biggie, and I'm happy to let it lie.

Apologies for any ruffled feathers.

Philip

[Alex Pepple]

Quincy, I simply disagree with and discount your one-sided opinion ... as with others' of that nature.

Cathy, thanks and well-put.

Philip, instant dismissiveness such as the I-hate-it critique with no elaboration is of little help. It often disguises an agenda separate from the material under review. And from your admission, is seems you were just dismissing the names nominated and probably didn't even bother to read the work associated with the nominees. This is one of the reasons why one of our guidelines that deals with giving critique recommends that " ... Whether your opinion is positive or negative, it is good practice to support it by close reference to details of the text and, where appropriate ..." (full text here). I appreciate your taking the time to explain your opinion, and I in turn have removed my comment in response to your previously inelaborated dismissive remark. I hope we can all move on now.

...Alex

[Quincy Lehr]

Cathy--

I see your point (and don't actually mean to second-guess Alex's choices), but I don't think my sense or Anna's sense of what we should nominate for the Pushcart or whatever is sacrosanct. (I do think it's quite good, of course.) And I can even see why Alex may have interpreted Phil's remark the way he did.

But I believe, strongly, that rejections hurt a bit more than we let on, and that using them to publicly humiliate or discredit our fellows is not on. There are plenty of ways to win an argument without that move, in this case, Alex could argue that (say) Stephen Edgar gets a lot of recognition because he is a very good poet, for instance.

Quincy

[Rick Mullin]

I just tried posting a pleasantry in the Able Muse Anthology is Here thread and found that comments in that thread are moderator-vetted! What the hell fun is that?

So, I'll post my pleasantry here: I've had a copy for weeks. And I'm still waiting for the karma to kick in around here.

Congrats to the winners. Right? Now, that's better.

Rick

[Alex Pepple]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the post. The behavior of the Submissions forum that you mention is not intentional, but a quirk associated with the set up needed to make private submissions possible. I'll play around with the settings again and see if I can make the public area of that forum behave the way we're all accustomed to.

Cheers,
...Alex

[Alex Pepple]

Rick, the fix is in and it should post normally now.

[Philip Quinlan]

A last comment. I never said the choices were bad. Of course, on song, Stephen Edgar is great. I wonder, though, what the marginal benefit to him will be of nomination or acceptance?

That's the problem with prizes. Should they:

1) Go to those who are self-evidently, and already known (including by themselves) to be good?
2) Go to those who aren't necessarily that great or well known yet, and maybe aren't that sure of themselves, but who show potential, and might actually be spurred on to do better?
3) Be given as sops to those who clearly aren't very good, so they shouldn't feel bad about themselves?
4) Everyone who participates, so that no one will feel left out?

I've heard every one of those arguments put forward as rationales for prize-giving, in various contexts, and I see problems with all of them. But the least worst is probably 2) in my opinion. When the winners are announced, I want to be surprised, and hopefully delighted by something/someone unexpected (as I was by Colette Bryce's now well-known poem, The Full Indian Rope Trick.)

As for Cathy's comments about "sour grapes." I'm happy to go on record as saying that in the time remaining to me, I don't expect to find the time to write enough of sufficient quality to even be nominated for anything, let alone win it. And that's just fine. The real prize is, very occasionally, coming up with something that you know is good. In my case, that usually turns out to be a donné in any case, which begs the question, who deserves the prize for one of those???

Oh, and I wish I'd said it that way in the first place. My original post was almost as terse as most rejections!

Pax

Philip

PS - looking back, I did submit one poem, ever, to Ablemuse. Actually it was reasonably good. And Alex's rejection was gracious, and far from dismissive. And it found a home anyway.

[Alex Pepple]

Philip,

We simply nominate the best work (as defined by us!) selected from the published work that fall within the nominating period, not the names. If you check our nomination and publication records, you'll see that we've published poets and writers who were first-timers and complete unknowns, and nominated first-time published authors as well. Likewise, we've rejected poets and writers whose bios boasted prestigious publication credits or appointments ... (maybe they've been riding on their names/credits as you've alleged, or maybe they thought they could dump their subpar material on us.) Regardless, we simply publish and nominate quality work, regardless of who it comes from. But, could it be that the reason why you tend to see the same established names published or nominated is because they, more often than not, consistently produce the best work?

...Alex