Thursday, June 28, 2007

what she said

I'm very much inclined to agree with Reb here about the whole question of "published". I had drafted length entry about this, but I realized I was just foaming at the mouth and she is much more eloquent here. Personally, I think I post whole poems and drafts less here now that there's a shorter lead time on them being published. But that's really just a courtesy to the journals that might be publishing it a click away in a couple months and not because they unreasonably demand it. There's this weird rift between "published " in the literal sense and "Published" in the po-biz sense. You've technically published-"made public"- something if you share it with anyone at all, even , like Dickinson, in a letter. At a reading, in a workshop/group. Passing out photocopies on the street. But "Published" implies a curated medium. Since it's only this last one that matters if you abide by the all-mighty rules of po-biz (I certainly don't) since in po-biz, since it's the only thing that "counts.", then you can't prohibit the first kind. You can't have it one way and not the other. It's illogical.

In other contentious news, Tupelo Press is apparently having another open period, in which they agree to take your money, aren't even offering the illusion of feedback, and don't even offer you the boon of competing anonymously, which means it costs more and provides less chance of actually being chosen than any contest out there (I think your chances would be better with Jorie Graham). Ouch. What freaks me out is the people who are still willing to bite.

3 comments:

CandyDishDoom said...

I agree with Reb, too. This little section especially hits home for me:

'I understand magazines wanting work that hasn't appeared in other magazines, but when did editors start competing with the poets' ability to promote their own work? Why are we talking about exclusivity as if there's money involved? Or this mythical "one small audience" that apparently scours every single poem on Internet?'

This is a matter I hadn't thought much about until in the last six months or so. I've always been publishing drafts AND completed versions of my new poems on my blog and never considered those published and submitted them pretty much wherever I pleased--but more recently, there are magazines that I will pass on submitting too because I can't tell from their guidelines what their definition of published is, etc...

CandyDishDoom said...

Plus there's the fact that my blog is 'protected' so it's not exactly a public forum, yet obviously some people can read it--so that seems to confuse the issue of whether or not blog-posted poems count as published even further...

I really enjoyed your dusie chapbook, by the way. I read it a few days ago and plan to read it again soon (hopefully today).

sara kearns said...

Count me in on Reb's position, as well. And candydish -- great question -- "but when did editors start competing with the poets' ability to promote their own work?" I hope with Siren I come down on a fair side of that question. Hmmm. 'Something to think about.

Hey Kristi, I just discovered your blog; it's really quite good -- and you post regularly, which I can't seem to do nearly as much as I would like to. I love the cover of Fever Almanac! And the title is equally great. Let me know if you want me to post it on Siren's "News & Notes" page next time I update it, which will be by September 1st.
I list all Siren contibutors' blogs that I know of on my blog, so I'll add yours -- 'glad I stumbled on it, and kudos on maintaining such a good one.