Hello,
I was asked recently to write an article on the problems in UK publishing on the web. Though my article has no answers, only ideas, it is the start of a debate that is needed. I mentioned Poetry Circle in the article as a positive model for inclusion, you can read the article here:
http://www.viewfromheremagazine.com/2009/11/how-competition-kills-craft.html

Your viewpoints there or here will be gratefully read. I think this debate is needed, in the article I am not attacking any one publisher, I am attacking the ethos of competition in craft.

Andrew

Good article, Andrew. Many good points raised. Also got me thinking about purpose of poetry and such. Writers have different reasons of course for writing, but how community treats the writing reflects, or ought to, what its use is to the community. Don't know about UK, but in US, poetry is sort of like white asparagus, mostly a niche product for the mid to upper classes, an acquired taste, a bit of an embarrassment. We cling to the idea that our community needs something from its poets, but even the minority who would agree with that statement would do a lot of pencil-chewing when asked What? The genre has had its legs cut off - by whom? why? -Tom

dear Tom

i do not feel your definition of the American poetry scene takes into consideration the large group of "poetry slam" poets,
there is an important community there.

silent lotus

 

You're right, Silent. Sh0wing my age! --Tom

Hi Andrew.

My view is to say that competion does not provide choice would be a bit of a broad statement.  If you were to say competition is the only way to provide choice, or that choice can only be provided by competition, those statements would be wrong, to my thinking.

Competition does provide choice in the sense that we always make choices. I choose which which books on poetry I'll buy and read, and I'm not going to buy one that doesn't provide me with what I need. I choose which websites or communities I'm a member of, and the ones I choose are the ones where I enjoy the writing and the poetry, for one thing.

I'm not going to be a member of a community where poets and writers have no desire to improve, no desire for any and all genres, no desire for advice or help, no desire to take advice and apply it, and above all are calloused in editing and critique to the point of harm, or are just simply rude to poets and writers they feel are not up to par.

I'm the member of another website where my contributions are not necessarily appreciated or enjoyed by the entire group (and I say that in reference to replies and comments). Yet I stay there because I like the writing and camaraderie, but my main reason for staying is because the manager of the website always responds to my efforts in some way or another, and has made it clear to me that she wants me to be there. So, for me, many times it only takes one person responding to you to keep you interested in membership--especially if you're an amateur and still have a lot to learn.

I feel we have to take into account the creator's reason for the website as well. If he/she designates the primary reason for the community, and abides by it, if a poet's work is rejected, it's not a personal matter. It's a matter of time and place. Every poet can find some place on the internet where he feels he plays an important part. My point is that every poetry site cannot provide everything for every writer.

For instance, if a poet posts a poem in submit, here at PC, and an editor doesn't feel it's ready, or feels like it needs further work, he moves it to the workshop. It's not a rejection of that poet, just that particular work. It's my understanding PC has a level of standard for the front page and the submit forum. If an editor doesn't feel a poem I've written is at that level, I have no problem with placement for the poem somewhere else.

And, in my opinion, I really shouldn't have a problem with it. I've been told upfront what's expected. It's not like someone is in a bad mood that day and decides to bash my poem to pieces. There are reasons why editors do what they do, and those reasons are not harmful. And I can say this as an observation not a defense. I'm not an editor here. I'm a member of PC.

So, my point is that competition does provide choice because something has to. Creators and editors make choices regarding how and what they want the nature of their community to be. Writers and poets make choices regarding what communities they want to access and contribute to.

As much as we may not like it, there are times a line has to be drawn somewhere in the sand.

Let me add, Andrew, that my comments are just that--my thoughts on competition and choice; and are not meant to sound argumentative or in opposition to anything you've said or written. In fact, I think it's awesome what you're doing. As a very smalltime writer who just loves the craft for what it is, you deserve a big Thank You!

cheryl

Oh God no! I would rather you be argumentative, that is the whole point, to have this debate. I don't want people to agree with me but to think about the role of publishers in the world today. I champion choice for readers and writers, my worry is that publishers are narrowing that choice (in the UK), moving towards 'one suit fits all' policy. That worries me, as I believe by it's very nature, craft is organic, craft grows and craft cannot be predicted. The same goes for readers. You take an argumentative stance, I will champion your right to do so.

Thank you for the kind comments.

A

great line, "craft cannot be predicted."

Andrew, I do apologize.  At first I misread your message.  And had to delete my second message.

But what I intend now to say is that I apologize for not addressing the issue of publishers at all.  I do remember reading your article.  I focused more on competition and choice, I guess because I'm not a publisher. 

I'll read the piece again and give you something to argue about.

cheryl

I've an enormous respect, Andrew, for all those editors of the smaller presses, who struggle contimually against such odds to serve 'the cause'. Thence comes all 'new' writing, and they are the backbone of whatever animal poetry is. It seems all the big houses have now been taken over by the corporations, whose only criterion is the pound or buck.

Certainly in the UK, the sources of small but welcome pittances have nearly all dried up for poets too. It becomes rarer and rarer even to get any pay now for doing a reading - hard enough even to get expenses since the Arts Council cutbacks. More and more literary events are filled with those trying to get their books sold, and so expected to read for nothing. What money I used to get was mostly spent on buying magazines and books, and I expect I wasn't alone in this. Now the writers' funds are drying up, so therefore is the money that previously would have gone to magazines and books.

It isn't hard to catalogue the problems, but what are the answers?

I salute you and all who battle so bravely in the cause.

milner