9.18.14

I used to get really jealous when I'd read about poets like Sylvia Plath or Edna St. Vincent Millay getting their poems published in newspapers or magazines as young women. Not only was I not fabulously talented like those women, but newspapers and magazines just don't publish amateur poetry anymore. (Obviously there are exceptions. I can't remember the last time I saw a poem in the Seattle Times or similar) Though, print media is going one way, and that's an entire topic for some other time, it can change the way everything happens for writers (one of my favorite takes on the traditional vs indie debate comes from Sarah Hoyt. Her blog is really busy so here's an example in an article. Beware, it is a political site). There is a lot to unpack in these ideas, hopefully I will do so adequately.

When I was a kid I submitted to one of those "who's who in ___ poetry" anthologies, not knowing they took any submissions and that it was just a moneymaking operation. It felt great at the time, until I realized it wasn't special at all. Now, with the ubiquity of the web, that option is open to anyone. There are still vanity presses, still "legit" operations, and everything else on the continuum. When you're young, you look for something that seems open to you, and like applying for jobs, it seems to get experience you need to have experience, and vice versa. Of course any place is happy to take your money while giving you the false hope that you'll get lucky, that you're getting you work "out there", or that you're just that darn talented.

Part of why this is ticklish is that writers don't really get "discovered" any more. You pitch your work to the industry, or you publish for yourself via a non-traditional means, and the audience doesn't seem to be that different from one to the other (the money might, but I wouldn't know). Poets aren't superstars. I would, say, writers aren't really superstars either, with maybe a handful of key household names (of course in literary circles this would be different). You can also seek publication, exposure, and sometimes cash through contests, but those are pretty fraught. I like this article that discusses the failures of contests for authors seeking publication.

Publishing new writing by way of contests implies a certain metaphysical attitude--the model privileges randomness, divisibility, fragmentation, unknowability, and nondeterminism, perfected and ground through a process of rationalization to the presumed opposite of these conditions. Something that starts out fluid and yielding is supposed to gel into a final judgment. The contradictions are rife. Victory in a poetry contest is never unequivocal--hence the (sometimes inordinately) long lists of runners-up, finalists, and honorable mentions, as though any of these could easily have been the victor. There is a victor, and yet there isn't. The illusion must be perpetuated that everyone always has an equal shot at winning the contest. All books are potentially publishable.

While I don't agree with the article that there are no outlets/small presses that are willing to read without a fee, a lot of the assertions seem to ring true.  Also, "explosion of MFA programs" may have something to do with why things are changing, or it may be a response. (Googling this appears to have set up several very wiggly cans of worms. People have Strong Feelings about MFA programs and their effect on literature. This article is 6 pages, but worth it).

I wonder if the main issues with all of this is that we are looking at a new problem through old eyes. The turbulence surrounding publication (money, fame, connections, all nearly invisible in reality) has shunted some energy away from the initial impetus. 'I write because ____' is at the root of that. If one writes for the turbulence, then, bombs away. If it's for another reason, then the aforementioned solutions really aren't.

Personally, I write because I feel like I have to, because I used to have to. It isn't really the same any more, and the more I learn about it, the less I like it or feel I have anything to contribute. Since the birth of poetry is oral tradition and at their most base they are just stories, then the point is to be shared, thus, the sharing. I guess I'm jealous of the relative ease with which publication could be attained (or the terrific skill of some of the greats of our language).

So, for those of you who want to reach a wider audience, Poets & Writers (I am tempted to be a pill and spell it out as Poets Ampersand Writers) has a fairly useful tool in their literary magazine database. The publications are broken down by what they accept, what type of submissions to send, whether any prize is involved, etc etc. I spent some time sending out little things to various outlets, (all unsuccessfully) and as long as you keep a spreadsheet of what you are sending where, it should be relatively easy to get a number of pieces out into the ether for consideration. (Many of these are multi-form as well, accepting art and prose and experimental works). Can't hurt.