Writing Groups: A Tool for Everyone
A writing group is a tool that any writer can take advantage of. It can offer benefits to your writing and maybe help generate ideas, while also encourage the less outgoing writer to overcome their fears.
There are many reasons to consider joining a writing group. First, the obvious: Reading your work to others will enable you to get honest feedback for improving your story. While your friends and family certainly want to see you succeed, they can something have a hard time being critical of your creative masterpieces. However, this will not be a problem at a writing group; the other members are writer and are there to support and help everyone along the way.
Another benefit to a writing group is that sitting and talking about your story or other people’s story may spark some creative flow. If you are in a room with other creative and imaginative people; hopefully you will be able to generate ideas and focus on writing.
Another benefit is overcoming the fear of reading—especially your own work—out loud and in front of others. Authors often do book readings and book signings, so it is important for them to be comfortable talking about their own writing in front of people. And a writing group is the perfect place to overcome this obstacle as the other people in the group are there because they want to hear your work. Remember, they are there to support you and help you, not to tear you down or rip you apart. Though it may be tough at time to hear constructive criticism, it is important to be able to take it. All the advice you may hear is probably not going to be great, but a lot of it may be worth thinking about and considering. Besides, after you finally get something published, there may be a review of your work that is not entirely positive. Being able to handle constructive criticism is the first step to accepting your work and not crumble at the first mention of negativity.
Joining a writing group is also a great way to connect with other people with similar interests. While it is great to have a diversified group of friends, it is definitely nice to have friends who share your passion and can relate to you on a creative level. Also, it is always nice to make connections where you can.
Finding a writing group shouldn’t be too difficult; today, anything can be found on the Internet. You can search for writing groups in your area to find out where and when they meet. You could also contact your local library and see if they have anything similar set up.
Attending a writing group meeting is something every writer should try at least once. With all the possible benefits, it’s certainly worth a short. And if it’s not for you, hey, at least you tried!
Here are a few links to check out for writer’s groups online or in your area:
http://www.forwriters.com/groups.html
http://www.writermag.com/wrt/community/groups/locations.asp
Michelle Mudry
Editorial Assistant
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
The Never-ending Debate: The Book or Movie?
With the newest Harry Potter movie right around the corner, the thought of books being made into movies stuck in my mind. So many books have been made into movies in the last few years that it appears society would rather watch television than read a good book. It also shows that Hollywood is having trouble finding an original idea. While these are debates in themselves, they are not the one I am focusing on at the moment. I will admit that some of these movies have been done well, but others have been extremely disappointing. In thinking about Harry Potter, I find the movies to be fitting, and little more. Since each movie had a different director, some are done better than others, but they still leave out so much of the books.
One book I found that was made well into a movie is Alexander Dumas’s ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’. It felt true to the storyline of the book, while bringing the characters to life on the big screen. Though I know some of the story line was taken out, it wasn’t obvious in the movie. This is nice; the audience isn’t fully aware they are missing something. In contrast, Jane Austen’s ‘Pride and Prejudice’ has been made into several movies, the latest with Keira Knightley. I enjoyed it, but I could tell where pieces of the story were missing.
Another aspect of books into movies is when the whole plotline is altered. This can be found in Nicholas Sparks' ‘A Walk to Remember’. The whole premise of the boy/girl meeting is completely different from the book to the movie. The relationship between the boy and girl is still there, but everything surrounding it has changed. This is due in part to modernization of the story. However, was this necessary? Do movies need to modernize books? Looking at ‘Pride & Prejudice’ or ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’, the answer is no. These movies made it big without modernizing a classic. Now, I’m not calling ‘A Walk to Remember’ a classic, but it makes one wonder if modernizing a story is a good idea. In this case, it worked, in the sense that the movie made a lot of money at the box office.
Here is where another interesting question pops up. Is it better to read the book first or to see the movie? Does the order it occur in affect one’s feeling toward one type of media versus the other? For instance, if someone watches the Disney version of ‘The Three Musketeers’ years before they ever pick up the book, will they always love the movie better than the novel? The two are different, and it could be said that falling in love with one hinders love of the other. I’m not saying this is true of all book/movie relationships, nor of every person, but simply thought it was an interesting question to explore. This situation could be the same for ‘The Lord of the Rings’, ‘Narnia’, ‘Ella Enchanted’, ‘Bridge to Terabithia’, ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’, and numerous others.
This also poses the question of whether books should ever be made into movies. On one hand, it brings a good story to a wider audience. On the other hand, it also could lessen the number of people who actually pick up the book. While much profit can be made off the movie, sometimes more than off the book itself, movies are becoming more and more expensive to see. A person could see a movie in a theatre once, and never see it again, or have to wait until it comes out on video. However, paying little more now for a book can allow someone to enjoy it for ages to come.
While it is nice to see a book come to life on the big screen, it also leads to the question of vision. Whose vision is this movie? Is it how the author truly thought it out, or is it solely the workings of the director. A director’s vision may not be at all what my vision is, deterring me from seeing the movie, liking it, or ever feeling the same way about the book. There is always the fear that the character will be different, that the way an event happens isn’t how someone pictured it, etc. While sometimes it turns out better, more often than not it doesn’t. Yet will any of this stop me from continuing to compare the two? Probably not.
I’d love to hear more opinions on this…
Some others weigh in on this debate:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1134742,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/11/print/main528940.shtml
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?indexID=49
Andrea Hall
Editorial Assistant
One book I found that was made well into a movie is Alexander Dumas’s ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’. It felt true to the storyline of the book, while bringing the characters to life on the big screen. Though I know some of the story line was taken out, it wasn’t obvious in the movie. This is nice; the audience isn’t fully aware they are missing something. In contrast, Jane Austen’s ‘Pride and Prejudice’ has been made into several movies, the latest with Keira Knightley. I enjoyed it, but I could tell where pieces of the story were missing.
Another aspect of books into movies is when the whole plotline is altered. This can be found in Nicholas Sparks' ‘A Walk to Remember’. The whole premise of the boy/girl meeting is completely different from the book to the movie. The relationship between the boy and girl is still there, but everything surrounding it has changed. This is due in part to modernization of the story. However, was this necessary? Do movies need to modernize books? Looking at ‘Pride & Prejudice’ or ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’, the answer is no. These movies made it big without modernizing a classic. Now, I’m not calling ‘A Walk to Remember’ a classic, but it makes one wonder if modernizing a story is a good idea. In this case, it worked, in the sense that the movie made a lot of money at the box office.
Here is where another interesting question pops up. Is it better to read the book first or to see the movie? Does the order it occur in affect one’s feeling toward one type of media versus the other? For instance, if someone watches the Disney version of ‘The Three Musketeers’ years before they ever pick up the book, will they always love the movie better than the novel? The two are different, and it could be said that falling in love with one hinders love of the other. I’m not saying this is true of all book/movie relationships, nor of every person, but simply thought it was an interesting question to explore. This situation could be the same for ‘The Lord of the Rings’, ‘Narnia’, ‘Ella Enchanted’, ‘Bridge to Terabithia’, ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’, and numerous others.
This also poses the question of whether books should ever be made into movies. On one hand, it brings a good story to a wider audience. On the other hand, it also could lessen the number of people who actually pick up the book. While much profit can be made off the movie, sometimes more than off the book itself, movies are becoming more and more expensive to see. A person could see a movie in a theatre once, and never see it again, or have to wait until it comes out on video. However, paying little more now for a book can allow someone to enjoy it for ages to come.
While it is nice to see a book come to life on the big screen, it also leads to the question of vision. Whose vision is this movie? Is it how the author truly thought it out, or is it solely the workings of the director. A director’s vision may not be at all what my vision is, deterring me from seeing the movie, liking it, or ever feeling the same way about the book. There is always the fear that the character will be different, that the way an event happens isn’t how someone pictured it, etc. While sometimes it turns out better, more often than not it doesn’t. Yet will any of this stop me from continuing to compare the two? Probably not.
I’d love to hear more opinions on this…
Some others weigh in on this debate:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1134742,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/11/print/main528940.shtml
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?indexID=49
Andrea Hall
Editorial Assistant
Monday, July 2, 2007
Overcoming Writer's Block
Writer’s block is every writer’s nightmare. It can come seemingly out of nowhere, and it does not discriminate. It can affect writers at any stage of whatever they’re working on. And though some may argue as to when it’s worst (not being able to start writing can be a confidence killer, and yet what can be more frustrating than having already started something, and then just losing all sight and inspiration?), it’s always an annoying road block. However, just because writer’s block trips you up, it doesn’t mean that your work is ruined. Although there is no definitive “cure,” this article aims to help you out of this rut with various explanation and exercises to try.
There are many possible reasons why people experience writer’s block. A possibly endless number if each individual reason is taken into account. However, the following are some common ones:
-Distraction. If every time you sit down to write, you think of other things you “should” be doing, it will probably restrict your creative capabilities. Although worrying about other responsibilities can hamper anyone’s flow, there is an obvious fix: do whatever it is that you can’t take your mind off of. Pay the bills, wash the car, write a letter to Great Aunt Gert, whatever. And then, when the task is complete, tell yourself you accomplished what needed to be done, and then set aside some time to write.
-Excessive Self-Criticism. Having goals and high expectations for yourself is great, but if they’re hindering your ability to write, then it’s time to rethink them. Unrealistic expectations can lead to frustration and writer’s block. It is not reasonable to expect everything you write to be amazingly perfect the first time you write it; this is what editing and revising are for. If this seems to be your problem, there are a few things you can do. First, take a break and remind yourself that your first draft is, after all, only a draft, and that it’s not supposed to be perfect. Then, sit down and just write. Whether it’s a short story, essay, or chapter, just write whatever comes to mind. Don’t worry about how crazy or “bad” it is. This will hopefully get some creative juices flowing, and when you’re done, you can take a look at whatever you’ve written and perhaps even use or revise some of it. If nothing else, it has warmed you up to start writing and has gotten the “needs to be perfect” jitters out of they way.
-Writing what you “should.” This complication affects you when you are trying to write in a particular genre or style because it is “popular” or what you think you “should” be writing. However, just because it is popular does not mean you should do it (after all, if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you? Sorry, couldn’t resist…). This can be an easy trap to fall into. After reading some immensely popular book, you think to yourself, hey, that was a great story. I bet I could do something similar and sell a million copies too. The problem with this is that a) it might not be—and probably isn’t—that easy, and b) you are essentially planning to write a knock off story. That’s not really what you want—you want a story that you truly wrote and that shows off your unique style and strengths. In this case, you should think about what you’re writing, and why. If it’s not something you love or are passionate about, perhaps you should consider setting it aside for a bit, and working on something you are familiar with and love.
However, if these three reasons don’t explain your lack of creativity and inspiration, there are still tings you can try to spark an onslaught of (hopefully) writing genius.
-Brainstorm/outline. This exercise may help if you’re fuzzy about what exactly you’re writing about or where the story is going. Plotting out a story line, even if it’s just in your head, or is just a rough idea, may help get you started.
-Talk to others. This can include anyone from your friends and family to a writing group. This technique may help in more than one way; first, hearing yourself talk about your idea may clear up or trigger some kind of inspiration, while the person or people you talk to may provide some valuable feedback or bring up a point that you may not have considered.
-Start wherever you want. If you are having trouble starting, consider moving onto a different part of the story that interests or intrigues you more. If you’re telling the story, who’s to say where it has to start? Of course, when you’re done you can always go back and add the beginning you had originally envisioned.
-Take a break. You may be stressing yourself out or drying up your creative wells by forcing yourself to write. So walk away for a little bit, and give your brain a rest. After a while, take another stab at it. Additionally, if you’re working on a computer, try writing on plain old paper, or vice versa. If you always write in the same spot and you’re in a rut, try moving to a different area for a brief period.
Although none of these ideas are guaranteed, hopefully they will spark a creative flood of sorts. If none of these works for you, there are numerous other writing exercises out there geared toward helping you overcome writer’s block. To find some of these, look online. And remember, no matter how silly the reason or the exercise, if it helps, then it’s successful.
There are many possible reasons why people experience writer’s block. A possibly endless number if each individual reason is taken into account. However, the following are some common ones:
-Distraction. If every time you sit down to write, you think of other things you “should” be doing, it will probably restrict your creative capabilities. Although worrying about other responsibilities can hamper anyone’s flow, there is an obvious fix: do whatever it is that you can’t take your mind off of. Pay the bills, wash the car, write a letter to Great Aunt Gert, whatever. And then, when the task is complete, tell yourself you accomplished what needed to be done, and then set aside some time to write.
-Excessive Self-Criticism. Having goals and high expectations for yourself is great, but if they’re hindering your ability to write, then it’s time to rethink them. Unrealistic expectations can lead to frustration and writer’s block. It is not reasonable to expect everything you write to be amazingly perfect the first time you write it; this is what editing and revising are for. If this seems to be your problem, there are a few things you can do. First, take a break and remind yourself that your first draft is, after all, only a draft, and that it’s not supposed to be perfect. Then, sit down and just write. Whether it’s a short story, essay, or chapter, just write whatever comes to mind. Don’t worry about how crazy or “bad” it is. This will hopefully get some creative juices flowing, and when you’re done, you can take a look at whatever you’ve written and perhaps even use or revise some of it. If nothing else, it has warmed you up to start writing and has gotten the “needs to be perfect” jitters out of they way.
-Writing what you “should.” This complication affects you when you are trying to write in a particular genre or style because it is “popular” or what you think you “should” be writing. However, just because it is popular does not mean you should do it (after all, if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you? Sorry, couldn’t resist…). This can be an easy trap to fall into. After reading some immensely popular book, you think to yourself, hey, that was a great story. I bet I could do something similar and sell a million copies too. The problem with this is that a) it might not be—and probably isn’t—that easy, and b) you are essentially planning to write a knock off story. That’s not really what you want—you want a story that you truly wrote and that shows off your unique style and strengths. In this case, you should think about what you’re writing, and why. If it’s not something you love or are passionate about, perhaps you should consider setting it aside for a bit, and working on something you are familiar with and love.
However, if these three reasons don’t explain your lack of creativity and inspiration, there are still tings you can try to spark an onslaught of (hopefully) writing genius.
-Brainstorm/outline. This exercise may help if you’re fuzzy about what exactly you’re writing about or where the story is going. Plotting out a story line, even if it’s just in your head, or is just a rough idea, may help get you started.
-Talk to others. This can include anyone from your friends and family to a writing group. This technique may help in more than one way; first, hearing yourself talk about your idea may clear up or trigger some kind of inspiration, while the person or people you talk to may provide some valuable feedback or bring up a point that you may not have considered.
-Start wherever you want. If you are having trouble starting, consider moving onto a different part of the story that interests or intrigues you more. If you’re telling the story, who’s to say where it has to start? Of course, when you’re done you can always go back and add the beginning you had originally envisioned.
-Take a break. You may be stressing yourself out or drying up your creative wells by forcing yourself to write. So walk away for a little bit, and give your brain a rest. After a while, take another stab at it. Additionally, if you’re working on a computer, try writing on plain old paper, or vice versa. If you always write in the same spot and you’re in a rut, try moving to a different area for a brief period.
Although none of these ideas are guaranteed, hopefully they will spark a creative flood of sorts. If none of these works for you, there are numerous other writing exercises out there geared toward helping you overcome writer’s block. To find some of these, look online. And remember, no matter how silly the reason or the exercise, if it helps, then it’s successful.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Just the Basics...
Writing a book, novel, even numerous poems, are each a challenge in their own way. Once accomplished, one should feel relief. Yet, the next phase looms in the background, causing more anxiety than before. The task of getting the work published. Putting the piece of oneself out into the world, in hope that others will enjoy it. But before this dream can become a reality, there are many steps to take and questions to answer.
After the writing is finished, there are smaller tasks of writing ahead. A synopsis of the book should be put together, in case it is requested. A cover letter and query letter are also good to have done, as they will be easy to send out when needed. Putting together a short paragraph of information about the author can also be useful, as it allows a writer to list other accomplishments in the publishing world. Make sure the work is in proper manuscript format also. If you’re unsure what this is, a good website to visit is http://www.shunn.net/format/. It gives examples of the proper format for short stories, novels and poems.
Another question to answer is that of getting an agent. Some individuals find them to be useful, as they have numerous contacts in the publishing world, which could help a piece of work get published. However, if one decides to take this route, then there is the task of finding agents to contact, and hoping one loves your work. If an agent isn’t something you feel is necessary, then it’s time to do some more research.
If working on your own to send out a manuscript, I recommend starting a list to help organize the process. Make sure you list the company, contact person, address, if they accept simultaneous submissions and most important, how they want to receive your manuscript. If they ask for a query letter first, DO NOT send them your entire manuscript. You want your first impression to be positive, and that means following directions. Always try to keep the publisher happy when thinking about your work, because that can help you go a long way.
After compiling the list of publishers, look over it again. If you have a preference between a big or small publisher, note that, and reorganize the list. Also look at how many places allow simultaneous submissions. This will determine if you can send out several manuscripts at once, or only one at a time.
Once the manuscript(s) are mailed, the waiting begins. Remember that it can take between 3 and 6 months for a publisher to acknowledge that they have received your work. This doesn’t mean they have read it yet, but that it is in their hands. If you haven’t heard anything after 6 months, then it is acceptable to call or send an e-mail inquiry. However, keep it short and professional. Simply ask if they have received your manuscript, as you want to make sure it wasn’t lost in the mail. Do not call and yell at the publisher for their inability to run an efficient company. No one likes that, and it will deter them from wanting to work with you, ever.
The work of sending out a manuscript is a lot, and often one receives a rejection letter. This is for many reasons that may have nothing to do with your work. For instance, it may not be the right genre for that company, or an editor may not be able to sell it to the department. However, there are many publishers out there, and it’s just a matter of finding the right one for you. Good luck.
Here are some other good websites to visit that will help you along the way...
http://www.writersdigest.com/
http://www.writersmarket.com/
Andrea Hall
Editorial Assistant
After the writing is finished, there are smaller tasks of writing ahead. A synopsis of the book should be put together, in case it is requested. A cover letter and query letter are also good to have done, as they will be easy to send out when needed. Putting together a short paragraph of information about the author can also be useful, as it allows a writer to list other accomplishments in the publishing world. Make sure the work is in proper manuscript format also. If you’re unsure what this is, a good website to visit is http://www.shunn.net/format/. It gives examples of the proper format for short stories, novels and poems.
Another question to answer is that of getting an agent. Some individuals find them to be useful, as they have numerous contacts in the publishing world, which could help a piece of work get published. However, if one decides to take this route, then there is the task of finding agents to contact, and hoping one loves your work. If an agent isn’t something you feel is necessary, then it’s time to do some more research.
If working on your own to send out a manuscript, I recommend starting a list to help organize the process. Make sure you list the company, contact person, address, if they accept simultaneous submissions and most important, how they want to receive your manuscript. If they ask for a query letter first, DO NOT send them your entire manuscript. You want your first impression to be positive, and that means following directions. Always try to keep the publisher happy when thinking about your work, because that can help you go a long way.
After compiling the list of publishers, look over it again. If you have a preference between a big or small publisher, note that, and reorganize the list. Also look at how many places allow simultaneous submissions. This will determine if you can send out several manuscripts at once, or only one at a time.
Once the manuscript(s) are mailed, the waiting begins. Remember that it can take between 3 and 6 months for a publisher to acknowledge that they have received your work. This doesn’t mean they have read it yet, but that it is in their hands. If you haven’t heard anything after 6 months, then it is acceptable to call or send an e-mail inquiry. However, keep it short and professional. Simply ask if they have received your manuscript, as you want to make sure it wasn’t lost in the mail. Do not call and yell at the publisher for their inability to run an efficient company. No one likes that, and it will deter them from wanting to work with you, ever.
The work of sending out a manuscript is a lot, and often one receives a rejection letter. This is for many reasons that may have nothing to do with your work. For instance, it may not be the right genre for that company, or an editor may not be able to sell it to the department. However, there are many publishers out there, and it’s just a matter of finding the right one for you. Good luck.
Here are some other good websites to visit that will help you along the way...
http://www.writersdigest.com/
http://www.writersmarket.com/
Andrea Hall
Editorial Assistant
Monday, March 26, 2007
Publishing Wisely: Advice for New Poets and Writers
Authors tend to want to see their latest books in print, at any cost, and often at the expense of any number of considerations. But I strongly contend that if you're looking to publish at all, that one ought to consider proceeding wisely.
For example--if you're a poet looking to publish a collection of poems, keep in mind that once those poems are published in book form, most of these poems will not be eligible to be published in most of the quality national and international literary magazines. The upside to publishing a book, however, is that in the future your poems will probably be more likely to get in those magazines.
But some will be better served by collecting written endorsements, and laying the networking foundations now for your future publications. If you work on more than one book at a time, that's even better, because you can start planting all sorts of seeds for that book as well. Most authors can expect lead times ranging from 1-5 years from acceptance to publication anyway. One of the most important thing you can do now is to get those endorsements, which will help lead to reviews in the big pre-pub. trade journals, which dramatically increases the likelihood that the book will be reviewed in major daily papers, litmags, and get all kinds of other mass media coverage. Good blurbs can make the difference, then, as to whether your book is exposed to thousands or millions of people.
Also--before you're tempted to start stuffing envelopes with all your lesser poems and stories for what you deem "the lesser magazines": these magazines are likely to sense your condescension; or worse, they'll publish this mediocre work of yours; so there may be thousands of people who only know you by a mediocre poem that even you admit is not as good as the 3-5 you sent to THE NEW YORKER, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, and THE GEORGIA REVIEW. If any of those readers see your name in ink again, they'll very possibly say something like "Oh yeah--I know that guy--he's the one that wrote that mundane poem in THE LITTLE LITMAG REVIEW that I thought was so forgettable."
Every time you publish something: fair or not, the quality of the writing will most likely come under scrutiny somewhere, and people may judge the corpus of your work from a little excerpt. If it does not represent you at your best, why put it on full display? Of course this isn't fair, but it's real, and bias works in mysterious ways--so why go out of the way to help the biases of others defeat your cause by showing them your least impressive samples?
--Christopher White, Chief Editor
For example--if you're a poet looking to publish a collection of poems, keep in mind that once those poems are published in book form, most of these poems will not be eligible to be published in most of the quality national and international literary magazines. The upside to publishing a book, however, is that in the future your poems will probably be more likely to get in those magazines.
But some will be better served by collecting written endorsements, and laying the networking foundations now for your future publications. If you work on more than one book at a time, that's even better, because you can start planting all sorts of seeds for that book as well. Most authors can expect lead times ranging from 1-5 years from acceptance to publication anyway. One of the most important thing you can do now is to get those endorsements, which will help lead to reviews in the big pre-pub. trade journals, which dramatically increases the likelihood that the book will be reviewed in major daily papers, litmags, and get all kinds of other mass media coverage. Good blurbs can make the difference, then, as to whether your book is exposed to thousands or millions of people.
Also--before you're tempted to start stuffing envelopes with all your lesser poems and stories for what you deem "the lesser magazines": these magazines are likely to sense your condescension; or worse, they'll publish this mediocre work of yours; so there may be thousands of people who only know you by a mediocre poem that even you admit is not as good as the 3-5 you sent to THE NEW YORKER, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, and THE GEORGIA REVIEW. If any of those readers see your name in ink again, they'll very possibly say something like "Oh yeah--I know that guy--he's the one that wrote that mundane poem in THE LITTLE LITMAG REVIEW that I thought was so forgettable."
Every time you publish something: fair or not, the quality of the writing will most likely come under scrutiny somewhere, and people may judge the corpus of your work from a little excerpt. If it does not represent you at your best, why put it on full display? Of course this isn't fair, but it's real, and bias works in mysterious ways--so why go out of the way to help the biases of others defeat your cause by showing them your least impressive samples?
--Christopher White, Chief Editor
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Some Principles Guiding Principles of Selection
I will continue to flesh out and clarify and/or qualify and elaborate my various arguments throughout these posts. Those who are hung up excessively on consistency of viewpoint have likely not been charmed and haunted by Whitman's famous quote: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself."
I mention that quote because I'd like to qualify some things from my last post, but also because I feel that I'm performing a public service by disseminating the quote even more, though I've heard it pop up more and more in recent years.
Thinking of Ezra Pound's pronouncement that "nations will be judged by their anthologies," the crucial matter behind that phrase is the notion that principles of selection and judgment are the sole means by which the accomplishments of the "guardians of art" will be judged.
But the principles of selection for a magazine, even one of the highest caliber, are not the same principles of selection that we should use when selecting works for anthologies, or even for selecting books to publish, based on their literary merits. Magazines play a vital role in showcasing the influential trends in art and other endeavors. There is generally a rather higher level of quality in the quality national literary journals than is acknowledged by the most curmudgeonly among us; but magazines in general, even the quality quarterlies, should not be held to an impossibly exacting standard in their selections of works that they choose to showcase. The literary magazine in the past century has been a vibrant, dynamic battlefield of ideas, experimentation, and tentative judgments. So the best magazines sometimes publish the less-than-excellent work by famous names, when others have a hard time finding their way into print. So what? It's not for the magazines to decide which of these poems should be gathered into anthologies, textbooks, "Best American So-and-So" and so on; this is the duty of our cultural guardians, and this is where the impossibly exacting standards of judgment and selection should come into play.
The problem of the pandemic distribution of really bad anthologies is far more problematic than the fact that winning a Pulitzer guarantees wide publication in magazines. This is apparently a problem of blurred roles. So I won't be so unreasonable as to insist that the creation of bad art is automatically bad for art. I think, however, that most of the time when bad art is held up as being excellent art, such posturing is no help to the state of the arts in any form.
It should be obvious to all literary tastemakers, and common knowledge among anyone who would make literary judgments that one should judge any artist based on the best of that artist's work. There are some literatteurs who are more consistently skilled than others, but there is only one commonality among all artists, even the greatest: all artists have created bad art. Some create nothing but bad art, but to write five truly important poems in 50 years of devoting a lifetime to writing poems is a major accomplishment. With any luck, and with years of application, one might conceivably create a body of work which is largely excellent, but even among the masters we should not confuse greatness or confidence with perfection or infallibility. So hero worship will ultimately disappoint. I admire many poems by James Wright, for instance, and so would call him a great poet. But I won't pretend that all of his poems are great.
It's true that sometimes great art strikes out of seemingly nowhere. But then, we rational humans are quick to take credit for the work of our subconscious mind, which is always doing some of our homework for us. It's true that sometimes the best work seems to write itself, and that the act of creation becomes more an act of surrender than the imposition of one's rational will. The masters understand the benefits of revelation, but also the pitfalls. One should not confuse poetic or artistic powers, epiphanies, flashes of clarity, etc. with creative omnipotence. Too often discussions on these matters is dichotomized, stripped of its gradations. One introduction to poetry textbook, for instance, downplaying the contribution of drugs and drink to the process of literary creation says something along the lines of "It's a steep, rocky drive up Parnassus, "--which is to say something like "friends don't let friends drink and drive up the gods of poetic inspiration." I think it's more important to make the point that one shouldn't REVISE under the influence of inspiration, drugs, mental breakdown, that sort of thing. But one should certainly follow the urge to write if and when it strikes. Sometimes miraculous acts of art appear at bizarre or inopportune moments. But it's important for new artists to understand that all acts of art which one creates from some seeming extra-rational source is not automatically excellent, and depending on the skills and/or instincts of the creator of the work, is often just inspired bad art. But it's also important for the advocates of fine craftsmanship to acknowledge the experience of ecstatic revelation in the act of creating art for many a fine artist. To deny that spirit of revelation called by various names is to dismiss a force that many artists recognize as being very real, and will likely erode the ethos of whoever propagates such a denial.
Speaking of denial; that is the primary danger of relying solely on the intuitive and inspired utterance in creation and revision. Certainly revision has been known to disrupt the vision; so perhaps the revision has no place in the vision. In which case revision might begin post-inspiration. The creation of art is often a passionate act. Revision should be a more sober one, but need not interfere with the vision, and one can save revising for less-inspired moments.
I mention that quote because I'd like to qualify some things from my last post, but also because I feel that I'm performing a public service by disseminating the quote even more, though I've heard it pop up more and more in recent years.
Thinking of Ezra Pound's pronouncement that "nations will be judged by their anthologies," the crucial matter behind that phrase is the notion that principles of selection and judgment are the sole means by which the accomplishments of the "guardians of art" will be judged.
But the principles of selection for a magazine, even one of the highest caliber, are not the same principles of selection that we should use when selecting works for anthologies, or even for selecting books to publish, based on their literary merits. Magazines play a vital role in showcasing the influential trends in art and other endeavors. There is generally a rather higher level of quality in the quality national literary journals than is acknowledged by the most curmudgeonly among us; but magazines in general, even the quality quarterlies, should not be held to an impossibly exacting standard in their selections of works that they choose to showcase. The literary magazine in the past century has been a vibrant, dynamic battlefield of ideas, experimentation, and tentative judgments. So the best magazines sometimes publish the less-than-excellent work by famous names, when others have a hard time finding their way into print. So what? It's not for the magazines to decide which of these poems should be gathered into anthologies, textbooks, "Best American So-and-So" and so on; this is the duty of our cultural guardians, and this is where the impossibly exacting standards of judgment and selection should come into play.
The problem of the pandemic distribution of really bad anthologies is far more problematic than the fact that winning a Pulitzer guarantees wide publication in magazines. This is apparently a problem of blurred roles. So I won't be so unreasonable as to insist that the creation of bad art is automatically bad for art. I think, however, that most of the time when bad art is held up as being excellent art, such posturing is no help to the state of the arts in any form.
It should be obvious to all literary tastemakers, and common knowledge among anyone who would make literary judgments that one should judge any artist based on the best of that artist's work. There are some literatteurs who are more consistently skilled than others, but there is only one commonality among all artists, even the greatest: all artists have created bad art. Some create nothing but bad art, but to write five truly important poems in 50 years of devoting a lifetime to writing poems is a major accomplishment. With any luck, and with years of application, one might conceivably create a body of work which is largely excellent, but even among the masters we should not confuse greatness or confidence with perfection or infallibility. So hero worship will ultimately disappoint. I admire many poems by James Wright, for instance, and so would call him a great poet. But I won't pretend that all of his poems are great.
It's true that sometimes great art strikes out of seemingly nowhere. But then, we rational humans are quick to take credit for the work of our subconscious mind, which is always doing some of our homework for us. It's true that sometimes the best work seems to write itself, and that the act of creation becomes more an act of surrender than the imposition of one's rational will. The masters understand the benefits of revelation, but also the pitfalls. One should not confuse poetic or artistic powers, epiphanies, flashes of clarity, etc. with creative omnipotence. Too often discussions on these matters is dichotomized, stripped of its gradations. One introduction to poetry textbook, for instance, downplaying the contribution of drugs and drink to the process of literary creation says something along the lines of "It's a steep, rocky drive up Parnassus, "--which is to say something like "friends don't let friends drink and drive up the gods of poetic inspiration." I think it's more important to make the point that one shouldn't REVISE under the influence of inspiration, drugs, mental breakdown, that sort of thing. But one should certainly follow the urge to write if and when it strikes. Sometimes miraculous acts of art appear at bizarre or inopportune moments. But it's important for new artists to understand that all acts of art which one creates from some seeming extra-rational source is not automatically excellent, and depending on the skills and/or instincts of the creator of the work, is often just inspired bad art. But it's also important for the advocates of fine craftsmanship to acknowledge the experience of ecstatic revelation in the act of creating art for many a fine artist. To deny that spirit of revelation called by various names is to dismiss a force that many artists recognize as being very real, and will likely erode the ethos of whoever propagates such a denial.
Speaking of denial; that is the primary danger of relying solely on the intuitive and inspired utterance in creation and revision. Certainly revision has been known to disrupt the vision; so perhaps the revision has no place in the vision. In which case revision might begin post-inspiration. The creation of art is often a passionate act. Revision should be a more sober one, but need not interfere with the vision, and one can save revising for less-inspired moments.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Laying it out for the laypeople; poetic popularity and the page-versus-performance debate
One reason I wanted to add an editor's blog was to create something of a lively, less formal companion to our website. Among other things, this will (hopefully) also help Rager Media to connect with those who might not be deeply familiar with the literary publishing industry, but are interested in knowing more about it. For this reason, I hope that those among the initiated who read these entries will be patient when I discuss topics that might seem obvious to them; what's obvious to the specialist may be a revelation to the average reader. There are any number of Frequently Asked Questions which I will address along the way. I also hope to stir some passions; my tastes in literature are exacting but specific. I'm bound to provoke some rage. If so, EXCELLENT--please feel free to leave ranting comments on this blog for the amusement and/or edification of others.
Sometime around 2004, at an Oberlin College booksigning, U.S. Poet Laureate and "literary rock star" Billy Collins talked about the need to open what he called "the closed circuit." In other words, the future of the print poetry institutions (and by logical extension, "literary fiction," though I don't believe that he factored fiction into his literary equation) depends upon poets reaching beyond the relatively closed circles of those who are already plugged into the literary establishment to find an audience beyond the English Departments of America.
Obviously poetry has seen a resurgence in recent years. There is no shortage of popular literary events--poetry slams, etc.. The fact that there's a show on HBO called Def Poetry Jam testifies to the potential for poetry's mainstream appeal. Unfortunately, there is a LOT of bad poetry (particularly on HBO's Def Poetry Jam) being shouted out on stages everywhere; but then, there are quite a few notable examples of very talented "performance poets." "Page poets" tend to be just a tad smug about their poetic roles, often feeling superior to "performance poets," whom they perceive to be all histrionics and subject matter and no real poetic talent. This is a remarkably unsubtle attitude, especially considering how many really bad poems find their way into print in some of the best national literary magazines.
That said, the really bad performance poets do tend to give poets a bad name. But then, so do the really bad print poets. I think of Ezra Pound's contention (something along the following lines) that the main advantage of the public's neglect of poetry is that censors and legislators also pay little attention to it. Similarly, the damage done to the public perception of poetry by bad print poems is minimized by the fact that most people don't read them. So because performance poetry tends to be more publicly conspicuous, the effusion of really bad performance poetry promises to accomplish an estrangement of poetry and the public on a scale that bad page poetry could never aspire to.
I've never undertaken a longitudinal empirical comparison of ratios of horrible poems to good poems between poetry for the page and poetry for the stage, but if I were a gambling man, which I'm not, I'd wager that there are more excellent poems recorded in our nation's best literary journals than have ever been composed exclusively for performance in the last couple of decades. But I'd also like to make a distinction between rap and performance poetry, which are largely different forms. Much of the best oral poetry to be found today is in rap music. Anyone who witnessed Mos Def's or Snoop Dogg's freestyling on MTV's now-defunct Lyricist Lounge Show would be hard-pressed to deny the potential for literary genius (yes, genius) in the hip-hop movement. It's obvious that critics will one day cease to fawn over the mostly forgettable work of Langston Hughes, for instance, in favor of the verbal masterpieces of Mos Def at his best. Langston Hughes will always remain important historically, but those with discerning tastes for truly accomplished poetry will one day summon the courage to sweep out the dusty specimens in the literary canon in favor of real working models from which contemporary poets can learn. Gone from the introductory anthologies, hopefully, will be Wordsworth, whose work should be studied as history (of course English majors should read Wordsworth--for the same reason that they should probably read the later work of T.S. Eliot: it's largely drivel, but has been inordinately influential), some of which will be seen as decent-enough for its time, but none of which poets writing today could learn anything of value from. With any luck, Shakespeare's sonnets will go, and the real poetic accomplishments of Shakespeare, which are to be found in his plays, will still be relevant.
It always surprises me when intelligent people dismiss an entire artistic mode. Performance poetry is often dismissed by the literati for the same reason that many people reject poetry produced by the literary establishment. The fact is that bad art is bad for art, if only because the preservation of the arts is a difficult thing, and if the serious arts weren't so endangered, the glut of bad artistic examples wouldn't be so dangerous and frustrating. Institutions which already thrive need no defenders or apologists; most people won't dismiss Jazz just because of the pseudo-jazz hack Kenny G. People don't generally give up on film as an artform just because they spent ten dollars on Rocky VI. Just because most of the poetry you'll hear on the stage is terrible does not mean that it's somehow an inherently flawed mode of poetic expression. After all, if I weren't a poet myself, and I didn't know that one will find excellent poems in the literary journals if you look hard enough, I might pick up a respected literary journal and conclude from that magazine that print poetry is crap, that contemporary poets have no ear, and that prosody died and went to Pandemonium. Or perhaps it took the slow boat down the River of Forgetfulness and Oblivion.
Sometime around 2004, at an Oberlin College booksigning, U.S. Poet Laureate and "literary rock star" Billy Collins talked about the need to open what he called "the closed circuit." In other words, the future of the print poetry institutions (and by logical extension, "literary fiction," though I don't believe that he factored fiction into his literary equation) depends upon poets reaching beyond the relatively closed circles of those who are already plugged into the literary establishment to find an audience beyond the English Departments of America.
Obviously poetry has seen a resurgence in recent years. There is no shortage of popular literary events--poetry slams, etc.. The fact that there's a show on HBO called Def Poetry Jam testifies to the potential for poetry's mainstream appeal. Unfortunately, there is a LOT of bad poetry (particularly on HBO's Def Poetry Jam) being shouted out on stages everywhere; but then, there are quite a few notable examples of very talented "performance poets." "Page poets" tend to be just a tad smug about their poetic roles, often feeling superior to "performance poets," whom they perceive to be all histrionics and subject matter and no real poetic talent. This is a remarkably unsubtle attitude, especially considering how many really bad poems find their way into print in some of the best national literary magazines.
That said, the really bad performance poets do tend to give poets a bad name. But then, so do the really bad print poets. I think of Ezra Pound's contention (something along the following lines) that the main advantage of the public's neglect of poetry is that censors and legislators also pay little attention to it. Similarly, the damage done to the public perception of poetry by bad print poems is minimized by the fact that most people don't read them. So because performance poetry tends to be more publicly conspicuous, the effusion of really bad performance poetry promises to accomplish an estrangement of poetry and the public on a scale that bad page poetry could never aspire to.
I've never undertaken a longitudinal empirical comparison of ratios of horrible poems to good poems between poetry for the page and poetry for the stage, but if I were a gambling man, which I'm not, I'd wager that there are more excellent poems recorded in our nation's best literary journals than have ever been composed exclusively for performance in the last couple of decades. But I'd also like to make a distinction between rap and performance poetry, which are largely different forms. Much of the best oral poetry to be found today is in rap music. Anyone who witnessed Mos Def's or Snoop Dogg's freestyling on MTV's now-defunct Lyricist Lounge Show would be hard-pressed to deny the potential for literary genius (yes, genius) in the hip-hop movement. It's obvious that critics will one day cease to fawn over the mostly forgettable work of Langston Hughes, for instance, in favor of the verbal masterpieces of Mos Def at his best. Langston Hughes will always remain important historically, but those with discerning tastes for truly accomplished poetry will one day summon the courage to sweep out the dusty specimens in the literary canon in favor of real working models from which contemporary poets can learn. Gone from the introductory anthologies, hopefully, will be Wordsworth, whose work should be studied as history (of course English majors should read Wordsworth--for the same reason that they should probably read the later work of T.S. Eliot: it's largely drivel, but has been inordinately influential), some of which will be seen as decent-enough for its time, but none of which poets writing today could learn anything of value from. With any luck, Shakespeare's sonnets will go, and the real poetic accomplishments of Shakespeare, which are to be found in his plays, will still be relevant.
It always surprises me when intelligent people dismiss an entire artistic mode. Performance poetry is often dismissed by the literati for the same reason that many people reject poetry produced by the literary establishment. The fact is that bad art is bad for art, if only because the preservation of the arts is a difficult thing, and if the serious arts weren't so endangered, the glut of bad artistic examples wouldn't be so dangerous and frustrating. Institutions which already thrive need no defenders or apologists; most people won't dismiss Jazz just because of the pseudo-jazz hack Kenny G. People don't generally give up on film as an artform just because they spent ten dollars on Rocky VI. Just because most of the poetry you'll hear on the stage is terrible does not mean that it's somehow an inherently flawed mode of poetic expression. After all, if I weren't a poet myself, and I didn't know that one will find excellent poems in the literary journals if you look hard enough, I might pick up a respected literary journal and conclude from that magazine that print poetry is crap, that contemporary poets have no ear, and that prosody died and went to Pandemonium. Or perhaps it took the slow boat down the River of Forgetfulness and Oblivion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
