Commercialization

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #43

    In "Nobody Reads Poetry" we discussed the more salient problems of simulated, supplier oriented markets.  Knowing that no one reads poetry--something that sales and hit counts could have told us--the next question is:  "Does anyone watch poetry being performed?"

    The short answer is "No."

    As the ratings of HBO's "Def Jam Poetry" demonstrate, neither poetry nor its performance is ready for prime time, literally or figuratively.  With coaching and practice, though, that can be fixed, along with the public's indifference.  A far more serious hurdle is the fact that few in the poetry world want it to succeed.  The good news?  These individuals can be easily identified by the bizarre spin they give to success, starting with the terms "commercialization" and "commodification":

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #93

    "Marc Smith, the founder of the Poetry Slam movement, is more critical of the [HBO's Def Jam Poetry] program. Smith decries the intense commercialization¹ of the poetry slam, and refers to Def Poetry as 'an exploitive entertainment [program that] diminished the value and aesthetic of performance poetry.'"

     You're probably thinking:  "When did unmodulated screaming into a microphone² become an 'aesthetic'?  When will people understand that an aesthetic entails what others like?  'Diminished the value'?  Can we even imagine what we see in slams or, for that matter, most poetry 'zines being worse?  Where is the value in writing that depreciates with exposure?"

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #43

     It is a fundamental principle of reality and perception that if everyone agrees the ball in the center of the room is red then it's red.  Similarly, given equal exposure, the worst poem that does have an audience is, by definition, better than the best verse that doesn't.  Sales are the crudest measure of worth, especially when many are guilted into their purchase and when so few are versed in the elements of verse, as is so often the case.  Ditto subscriptions in an era when they are given out to contributors.  Ditto Internet hit counts, even if they are distinguished from bot visits (better that they be differentiated from Looky Lous, as by length of stay).

     Neverthless, it is safe to say that 10,000 (60,000+ today, adjusting for population growth, even without accounting for the spread of English) people purchasing copies of Lord Byron's "The Corsair" on its date of publication would make it an unqualified success (for itself and, in light of many other examples, poetry in general), especially compared to any poem in the last half century.  In 1814 Byron turned down an offer of 1,000 (a little more than $100,000 today) guineas for the rights to "Bride of Abydos".

Julie R. Enszer

     Julie R. Enszer's "Are Too Many People Writing Poetry?" addressed the possibility of too many cooks spoiling the broth.  Is overproduction a good thing?  No.  Is it likely that many of those who bought Byron's verse imagined themselves poets?  Yes.  In other words, bad poets are good for the art form.  Bad poetry?  Not so much.  How do we separate the elephants from their droppings?  200 years ago the market would do so, albeit with the influence of affluence (to say nothing of the issues of nationalism/regionalism, sexism, nepotism, politics, economics, access, et cetera.) along the way.

    Today, we have a much more democratic and accurate measure of poetry's individual or collective value:  the search engine.  It records something more important that sales or readership;  it reveals poetry's impact.  Put your favorite contemporary poem's title and some phrases into Google and see for yourself that Nobody Reads Poetry.  Among the world's 2,000,000,000 English speakers, anything less than 6 digits (0.005%) is insignificant.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #85

    As far as recompense is concerned, there will always be those delusional purists who believe that "poets should be seen and not paid", that "public" equates to "morons" (despite the fact that poetry's market--when it had one--was the more literate/sophisticated half of the population), or that obscurity is a mark of genius, not failure.  At the opposite extreme will be those who use sales as their only yardstick, concluding that Charles Bukowski was a better poet than A.E. Stallings³ or that Billy Collins might be better than Margaret Ann Griffiths³.

     We can hope that the sour grapes attitude toward commercialization will be strictly a 20th century phenomenon.  Make no mistake:  It was commercialism that brought and preserved everything from "Hamlet" to "Songs of a Sourdough".  On balance, it was a good thing.  With the Internet's webzines, YouTube and social media, though, it may also be an obsolete thing.

---

Footnotes:

¹ - Of course, there is no "intense commercialization" of slam.

 com·mer·cial·ize

1. to make commercial in character, methods, or spirit.
2. to emphasize the profitable aspects of, especially at the expense of quality: to commercialize one's artistic talent.
3. to offer for sale; make available as a commodity.

com·mod·i·fy

1. to turn into a commodity; make commercial.

com·mod·i·ty

1. an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service.
2. something of use, advantage, or value.
3. [Stock Exchange.] any unprocessed or partially processed good, as grain, fruits, and vegetables, or precious metals.

     Let me get this straight:  these people don't want poetry to be profitable or "of use...or value", yet they don't want that value to be "diminished".  Really?

² - Marc Smith is the polar opposite of every slammer who came after him.  Believe it or not, he may be the most genuine and understated poetry performer outside of theater.  The problem is his dull, prosey material.  I challenge anyone to listen to "Small Boy" or "My Father's Coat" without wanting to cut in with "Excuse me, but why are you telling me this stuff?"

³ - It is physically painful to type out notions this foolish.  At the very least, let us acknowledge the gross disparity in exposure afforded these two men and the infinitely more skilled women.

---

Links:

1.  Nobody Reads Poetry

2.  Commercialization

---

    Your feedback is appreciated!

    Please take a moment to comment or ask questions below or, failing that, mark the post as "funny", "interesting", "silly" or "dull".  Also, feel free to expand this conversation by linking to it on Twitter or Facebook.  Please let us know if you've included us on your blogroll so that we can reciprocate.

    If you would like to contact us confidentially or blog here as "Gray for a Day" please use the box below, marking your post as "Private" and including your email address;  the moderator will bring your post to our attention and prevent it from appearing publicly.

    We look forward to hearing from you.

Signed,

Earl Gray, Esquirrel

---