Thursday, May 18, 2006

dead horses

I don’t know why this is one that continues to be beaten, but:

a). the Wicked Alice Chicago Issue is not an “anthology.”

b) with the exception of the last Chicago issue in 2004, clearly touted as “Chicago Women Poets,” all issues are equally open to male poets, female poets, transgender poets, interspecies poets, interdisciplinary poets, homosexuals, bisexuals, trysexuals, metrasexuals, the ambidextrous and illegal aliens. “Women Centered” is a vague term, but which usually just means a female element, speaker, character, focus. (but even that's open to interpretation) You’ll really impress me if you can quote Helene Cixous, but that’s not a requirement.

c) the e-mail he is referring to was sent by a fellow poet who wanted to informally publicize the call for submissions to her mailing list. Not me. So, believe me, “the editor” had no hand in soliciting him to submit. While I respect the role Bianchi plays with his Chicago Postmodern Poetry website and perhaps his critical acumen, his work really, some of which may be seen at Seven Corners, I find not really to my own aesthetic taste. But to each his own, I guess. Considering he names three poets earlier in his post as people he differs from aesthetically, and whose work I happen to love, this is not surprising.

d) guidelines and editorial policies for Wicked Alice are clearly stated in the simplest language at the website should one choose to look for them.

e.) Wicked Alice has no problem with simultaneous submissions, nor should anyone consider submitting poetry to us a “sacred act.” on par with ritual sacrifice (though it feels like that sometimes.)

f) perhaps his discussion was an important one, but his basis of argument regarding the-mail, was faulty and based on his own misunderstandings. Therefore, the rebuttal.

g) His mention of a “vanity exercise” made me laugh. Since I publish work that I happen to like and think is important, that does seem to make it all about me. So be it. I like poems and I want them out there. And yes, don’t you know, it’s all about me. (because I get such fame, fortune, and glory from coding 8 hours worth of html per issue and my mega-staplethons.) Me. Me. Me!!

h).Unlike some editors, I'm not making any grand aesthetic statements that what I publish is the end all be all of poetry, that we're a "serious forum." A couple months ago, I saw a discussion on anthologies/journals on editors who claim the above and those who see themselves as collectors. And that's mostly what I get out of doing it, the collecting aspect. Poems like river rocks or really cool stamps. Here *holding out my palm*, look at these...


brandijay said...

Oh, Kristy, I am so, so, sorry about this. This is so terrible!

wickedpen said...

oh's sort of funny all this brouhaha over something so silly...:)

poetzie said...

I find it interesting that he names Kristy Odelius. Her aesthetic is more postmodern (I would say, and also more interesting/provocative) than some of the poets he praises.

And I remember getting that email. . .seems like a lot of silliness and sour grapes to me. . .though it's all part of the business I suppose.

Though, to be honest, the anthology idea is kind of an interesting one. . .