|Earl the Squirrel's Rule #162|
Early returns suggest that we don't have a new Dorothy Parker in our midst.
A few questions, if I may:
1. Is this a prudent use of the art form's scant resources? In what way does this help P/p-oetry?
2. Is this anyone's best guess as to what Ruth Lilly would have had in mind?
3. Is this consistent with the original mandate of Poetry Magazine? Is it "the best English verse which is being written today" and "the highest, most complete expression of truth and beauty"?
|Earl the Squirrel's Rule #171|
5. Does this show respect for contributors, including those bumped to make space for it?
6. Does this show respect for educators endeavoring to teach much better scansion and technique than Ms. Morris exhibits?
7. If this is an attempt at humor or shock value, does it show respect for those like Allen Ginsberg and Lenny Bruce who faced prosecution to ensure that subsequent generations, including Ms. Morris, wouldn't? And who did so without compromising humor or art, as Ms. Morris has?
8. Is this intended to advance the career of its author? Are today's academic institutions eager to hire instructors who can't even produce passable doggerel? Is it or is it not a responsibility of editors to prevent young writers from committing professional suicide?
|Earl the Squirrel's Rule #135|
10. Is there a danger of appearing like creepy, cringeworthy crones trying to appear hip?
11. Do people not understand that the lack of an aesthetic is, itself, an aesthetic?
12. Is it time to consider a change in direction?