When my poems are rejected, did I slip up, or were the editors' slips showing? You, gentle reader, or perhaps not so gentle, can decide. Please let me know in the comments.
Among my rejection slips are the ones that apologize, that remind me that the entire staff writes poetry, that the rejection is because of a "bad fit" rather rhan a negative value judgment of course from my viewpoint the problem is twofold: editorial cowardice ame a lazy ignorance.
The bible/libel quip seems perfect. I particularly like the one in which the person behind the curtain replies "my life." Euthanasia is a critical issue and deserves vastly more public discussion than it receives. But you know my views on this.
I'm afraid there are very many poetry editors today who are strictly soi-disant. One I've dealt with would reject anything by Housman simply because it rhymes, believing that rhymes are a straightjacket that prevents free and natural expression. Words must never be forced into a corset. Housman's aren't though, there's nothing forced about them. No point in arguing the obvious with people so fixed in their strange faith--and who could never write lines as perfect and pellucid as Housman's. The true reason they reject superior composition is their inability to match it. Thus what the ungifted are capable of is imposed as the standard.
I think the bible/libel epigram was a pretty bold statement for a preteen in a devout christian family. I stick by it and still use it more than half a century later. God, am I really that old?
You were undoubtedly an influence on "Brrexit" so I'm glad you approve of the "my life!" reverse curtain call.
I wrote a pro-suicide poem, "Infinity," around age 17-18, in sympathy with someone considering suicide. My poem "Aflutter" is about a couple choosing to exit the world together. And I have several antinatalist poems of reasonably good quality, I think, along with translations of Homer, Sophocles, et al.
Whatever my failings as a editor, rejecting good poems for ridiculous reasons is not one of them. I often use Housman as an example that good poems do not require either metaphor or imagery. His direct statement poems refute nonsensical cries of "no ideas but in things!" As do the great soliloquies of Shakespeare and Milton.
Modern poetry seems both corseted and dumbed-down, but that gives a clear advantage to talented independent thinkers.
Good writing in general should say something worth hearing and should say it in language that is both clear and finely constructed.
I am by no mean an authority on what is being passed off as poetry currently, having turned my back on it some time ago because of lack of rewards-- because the preponderance of it bored me to death. I'd agree that the governing editorial mindset these days is locked in quite rigid--and unexamined--beliefs, but the stuff published under poetry's banner, much of it--as I recall from past browsings anyway--seemed slapdash and/or unintelligible, i.e. subpar by any serious literary citerion, no language mastery, nor any intriguing content.
It's too bad American public education has been cheating everyone for so long--and that no one realizes it is no wonder. Hoe can one miss what one never had.
I agree in general, but there have been some excellent exceptions to the rule, such as Seamus Heaney (I think "Punishment" is a masterpiece), Richard Wilbur (esp. "The Death of a Toad"), Derek Walcott (esp. "Omeros"), and several others including yourself.
In every era there are only a few poets who really count as far as the future is concerned, so we may not be so very different, after all.
P.S. I agree the Seaney and Wilbur poems you admire are both estimable. The first exposes the grisly depth of human cruelty, the second, life's cruelty in general. Both have considerable power, both demonstrate deep sensibility. The Wilbur one I've always especially admired, it's so finely composed. Walcott's famous epic I've never read, but would suppose you are right about it. I don't have much taste for epic poetry, though I can read Lucretius without losing focus.
I often reread myself with some interest, but only when high.
I lament the widespread decline in language proficiency in the US and agree with Richard Mitchell about the reasons for the steep decline. The 60s' movements had both good results and bad.
People with a knack for language are still being born of course, but much more autodidacticism is necessary today for them to acquire the skills necessary to excel in their natural vocation. The state of public education is the reason for this.
I don't think Tweety could have so many backers if American public education had been doing its job.
The Drawer of Mermaids
A crushing beauty
Hope without measure
I'm glad you liked the poem. I was always surprised when it didn't get accepted.
I love The Toast
I like it myself.
I love
Myth
Of course I would
We all need a myth now and then.
I think my favorite is Erin.
Among my rejection slips are the ones that apologize, that remind me that the entire staff writes poetry, that the rejection is because of a "bad fit" rather rhan a negative value judgment of course from my viewpoint the problem is twofold: editorial cowardice ame a lazy ignorance.
I'm glad you liked "Erin" which is one of my favorite "rejection slips."
My favorite rejection by a major journal read, "Your poems are fine, even beautiful, BUT..."
I think the editor was afraid publishing moving poems would make him seem not aloof and jaded enough, or something like that.
Thx for admiring my beautiful butt;
I invite you to take a sniff.
Don't worry; I promise not to cut
a fart while you're having a whiff.
Or with somesuch one might've replied.
The bible/libel quip seems perfect. I particularly like the one in which the person behind the curtain replies "my life." Euthanasia is a critical issue and deserves vastly more public discussion than it receives. But you know my views on this.
I'm afraid there are very many poetry editors today who are strictly soi-disant. One I've dealt with would reject anything by Housman simply because it rhymes, believing that rhymes are a straightjacket that prevents free and natural expression. Words must never be forced into a corset. Housman's aren't though, there's nothing forced about them. No point in arguing the obvious with people so fixed in their strange faith--and who could never write lines as perfect and pellucid as Housman's. The true reason they reject superior composition is their inability to match it. Thus what the ungifted are capable of is imposed as the standard.
I hope not to sniff
that pungent whiff!
I think the bible/libel epigram was a pretty bold statement for a preteen in a devout christian family. I stick by it and still use it more than half a century later. God, am I really that old?
You were undoubtedly an influence on "Brrexit" so I'm glad you approve of the "my life!" reverse curtain call.
I wrote a pro-suicide poem, "Infinity," around age 17-18, in sympathy with someone considering suicide. My poem "Aflutter" is about a couple choosing to exit the world together. And I have several antinatalist poems of reasonably good quality, I think, along with translations of Homer, Sophocles, et al.
Whatever my failings as a editor, rejecting good poems for ridiculous reasons is not one of them. I often use Housman as an example that good poems do not require either metaphor or imagery. His direct statement poems refute nonsensical cries of "no ideas but in things!" As do the great soliloquies of Shakespeare and Milton.
Modern poetry seems both corseted and dumbed-down, but that gives a clear advantage to talented independent thinkers.
Oh, and I meant to include an old ditty of mine regarding finding rhymes for poetry:
Advice To A Praised Friend
My friend, today in poetry
To have a single votary
Seems so beyond belief that we
Perhaps should call a notary.
I have added it, thanks.
I like your ditty. Would you like me to add it to your THT page?
You're welcome to it.
Good writing in general should say something worth hearing and should say it in language that is both clear and finely constructed.
I am by no mean an authority on what is being passed off as poetry currently, having turned my back on it some time ago because of lack of rewards-- because the preponderance of it bored me to death. I'd agree that the governing editorial mindset these days is locked in quite rigid--and unexamined--beliefs, but the stuff published under poetry's banner, much of it--as I recall from past browsings anyway--seemed slapdash and/or unintelligible, i.e. subpar by any serious literary citerion, no language mastery, nor any intriguing content.
It's too bad American public education has been cheating everyone for so long--and that no one realizes it is no wonder. Hoe can one miss what one never had.
I agree in general, but there have been some excellent exceptions to the rule, such as Seamus Heaney (I think "Punishment" is a masterpiece), Richard Wilbur (esp. "The Death of a Toad"), Derek Walcott (esp. "Omeros"), and several others including yourself.
In every era there are only a few poets who really count as far as the future is concerned, so we may not be so very different, after all.
P.S. I agree the Seaney and Wilbur poems you admire are both estimable. The first exposes the grisly depth of human cruelty, the second, life's cruelty in general. Both have considerable power, both demonstrate deep sensibility. The Wilbur one I've always especially admired, it's so finely composed. Walcott's famous epic I've never read, but would suppose you are right about it. I don't have much taste for epic poetry, though I can read Lucretius without losing focus.
I often reread myself with some interest, but only when high.
I lament the widespread decline in language proficiency in the US and agree with Richard Mitchell about the reasons for the steep decline. The 60s' movements had both good results and bad.
People with a knack for language are still being born of course, but much more autodidacticism is necessary today for them to acquire the skills necessary to excel in their natural vocation. The state of public education is the reason for this.
I don't think Tweety could have so many backers if American public education had been doing its job.