Commercial Poetry

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Submission Fees

     "Submission fees are just one discriminating editor removed from the Poetry.com scam."

     That was our reaction when reading fees first appeared.

      For those unfamiliar with the practice, submission (aka "reading") fees are monies paid by contributors for publication consideration. They differ from contest entrance fees in that publication, not prizes, are the central purpose. Indeed, folding in a subscription with an entry fee is a laudable way to increase circulation. As for submission fees, if nothing else, they prove that Nobody Reads Poetry [without being paid to do so]. Would anything be sillier than a glossy like "Readers Digest" or "Golf World" charging its writers instead of paying them? Actually, yes, there would be: comparing thriving genres like fiction, general nonfiction or sports reporting to poetry.

Tim Green

One of the most insightful discussions on this topic was Rattle Editor Timothy Green's¹ "Clowns Against Submission Fees" thread. He and his supporters make a number of excellent, familiar arguments against reading fees, minus the consideration that it undermines the editors' incentive to seek subscribers. In the margins, though, the conversation also aired a few thoughts in favor of the policy:

1. For the individual contributor the cost is inconsequential. Thanks to the Internet, "a $3 reading fee is less [or little more] than it would cost" for stationery and postage. Does this token payment not serve the practical purpose of limiting the number of frivolous submissions?

2. Printing and mailing is costly, requiring that such venues be "externally funded". If their subscribers are writers rather than strictly readers (tanr), isn't it less like a commercial endeavor and more like a pot luck gathering or friendly poker game where everyone is asked to ante up? A backer is putting up more than 50% of the total cost, the Greens are doing all of the "grunt work", and these "contributors" balk at ponying up a measly $3?

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #45

3. Indeed, given that "the average circulation of a print journal is 500 copies, that the average Alexa ranking of an online journal is about 5 million", why not join the 21st century and put out a full-fledged e-zine instead? Devote the majority of external funds to the staff and writers. Sell the print versions as subscriptions to Old Schoolers, as collector's items, on Amazon as souvenirs or as performance contest marketing prompts², but concentrate on where the future lies. Dominate the field. After all, how many webzines have any significant funding whatsoever? Yeah, that would be "about none".

4. No one objects to entry fees, but the only significant difference between a contest and a magazine is that a contest must declare a winner (even if it's the best of a bad lot) whereas, in theory, if a magazine doesn't get enough quality submissions it doesn't have to publish anything. In light of what is being put out today, though, this is a distinction without a difference.

5. One final thought: We are talking about chopping down forests in order to print magazines for a population dominated by tree-huggers (not all of whom are squirrels). Think about that for a moment.

Coming Soon: "Love is a Weakness", Chapter 1

Footnotes:

¹ - As you may know, we here at "Commercial Poetry" have a different mandate, medium and approach to aesthetics and education but when it comes to promotion there is no one we admire more than the Greens, Tim and Meghan.

² - For example, have a cash prize for whoever makes the best video using a poem in, say, the Summer 2016 edition. "No purchase necessary!"

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Diversity

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #174

In past centuries wealth dominated the literary landscape. In human terms this translated to "white male", a lack of racial and gender diversity which continues in the print and performance worlds today.

By contrast, we geeks tend to be purists. To allow anything other than quality to interfere with aesthetic decisions is heresy laced with condescension, cowardice and craven self-interest. The reason we have moved so quickly to the online world is simple: the thought that brilliance is being overlooked because of a lack of access is unbearable. Ask yourself this: "How many of the great poets or finest poems of the 21st Century would we know without the Internet?"

We squirrels find that, with "authorities" judging work based on content, a preference is shown for writers with similar life experiences--usually those of the same locale and subspecies. Rural chipmunks like the bucolic focus and energy of other country chipmunks. Urban tree squirrels prefer the arboreal but cosmopolitan view of other red city squirrels. We small town ground squirrels lean toward the down-to-earth stories and philosophies of others with neutral fur tones and box office addresses. This is natural and, probably, inevitable.

At first blush, this is easily solved through specialization. One 'zine might serve the male moles of Montana while another entertains the gay groundhogs of Galway. WTP?

     For starters, this fragmentation of an already tiny market ensures that none of these outlets will be financial viable. Worse yet, because of the inconvenience and expense of so many sources, many of us would not have been exposed to such modern classics as "The Life and Times of Prairie Larry" by Gordie the Gopher or "Edges and Ledges" by the Lemming sisters. The fear is that, in centralizing the process to reach a broader audience, voices might be lost.

     The solution, it seems, would be for editors to observe formal or informal quotas to reflect the population at large. Whether or not this involves DNA and hormone testing would, I assume, be left to the discretion of the individual rodent publishers.

     Is there another, less arbitrary and convoluted approach?

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #155

     What happens when critics and editors make informed assessments based not on Content Regency and politics but on intrinsic technical and artistic merit?

     Everything changes.

     When we make double blind/objective evaluations, as we find in contests and would hope to see in editors, egalitarianism and diversity appear as if by magic. In the long run it is as reliable as arithmetic.

     For example, take a look at the geeks' choices of the top ten poets of this century: Margaret Ann Griffiths, D.P. Kristalo, A.E. Stallings, Derek Walcott, Rhina Polonia Espaillat, Rose Kelleher, Julie Carter, Catherine Rogers, Marc Smith, and Jennifer Reeser.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #170

     Needless to say, biographical data played no role in the experts' discussion or decision.

     So, how did they fare demographically? The list includes someone of African descent, at least one person of Hispanic heritage and one who is part native American. Given the small sample size, that is remarkably close to the composition of the English speaking world. This result required nothing more than equal access along with knowledgeable judges and editors.¹

     Who could have guessed that the antidote to centuries of discrimination and neglect would be something as simple² as education?

Coming Soon: "Love is a Weakness", Chapter 1

Footnotes:

¹ - Lest it be lost, note the distinction between "knowledgeable judges and editors" making "informed assessments based...on intrinsic technical and artistic merit" versus so-called "'authorities' judging work based on content."

     Care to divine what percentage of poetry editors know even the rudiments of verse?

     Hint: Divide your first guess by ten.

² - The only questions that remain are:

a) Why are 80% of the best 10 poets female? Wouldn't we expect 5-to-5?

     Well, sample size is a problem. As it happens, all of the next five poets are male: Andrew Kei Miller, George Elliott Clarke, Jee Leong Koh, Michael "Juster" James Astrue, and Dennis Hammes (1945-04-08 - 2008-12-23). No surprises there.

b) Why is there such a gender imbalance in the stage world (e.g. slams, open mikes, etc.)?

This question deserves its own post. Stay tuned.

Your feedback is appreciated!

    Please take a moment to comment or ask questions below. Failing that, please 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 follow us, contact us confidentially or blog here as "Gray for a Day" please befriend us, "Earl Gray", on Facebook.

    We look forward to hearing from you.

Signed,

Earl Gray, Esquirrel

Monday, July 20, 2015

Writing The Great Modern Novel?

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #43

Remember when unknown writers sent their work "over the transom" to editors who read them with an eye toward publication? No? That is because, if those days ever existed, they were more than half a century ago. Today, the watch phrase is "No one publishes strangers." Best way to introduce yourself to an editor? Have a following that constitutes a market. Enter the Publication Paradox: you can't get a readership without publication and you can't get published without a readership.

Let's say you want to bring The Great Modern Novel into this world but you have four interrelated and insurmountable obstacles: you are too lazy--you prefer the expression "motivationally challenged"--to finish writing it, especially in light of the fact that you are too obscure to have a publisher or a readership that might attract one. Also, you're too modest and shy to promote your work or yourself, before or after publication.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #81

The situation looks bleak, and isn't helped by knowing that this is the norm, not the exception. Nevertheless, we may have the solution to all four hurdles you face [if your writing makes the grade].

Write three chapters of your book: the first one, the last one, and the one that best advances the main plot. Post them on a free blog like this, one at a time over a few days or weeks. Post social media links to it with a nifty title and catch phrase. In theory, at least, your friends and relatives will read it and post complimentary reviews and a desire to see the completed work. Their acquaintances might do the same. Soon, strangers will be commenting. Once you have generated enough positive feedback an editor is likely to notice [with or without your assistance]. What outlet wouldn't want to produce work that already has a built-in market?¹ (See "#slam dunk" and "#fish in a barrel.")

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #90

This is an example of wholesale script-teasing. It differs from "pitching" in that it involves the public [essentially, as a ramp or lever toward publication] and uses cogent excerpts rather than synopses. It differs from retail script-teasing in that, originally at least, it doesn't involve a final product. By not withholding anything yet it tends to create less ill-will than sample chapters followed by a purchase option. It's more like crowd-sourcing than, say, shareware, movie trailers or free cheese samples at the supermarket. Best of all, it saves labor, printing and distribution costs; if the work cannot generate enthusiasm from family, friends and strangers (in that order) we needn't bother an editor with it. The Internet has served as a screener.

In the near future we will release an experimental wholesale script-tease novel entitled "Love is a Weakness", a tale about a girl who changed the world.² Watch for it here!

Footnotes:

¹ - Other than Poetry magazine, of course.

² - Note the provocative title and description. The poetry connection will be abundantly evident when you read it.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Utile

utile

adjective
1. an obsolete word for useful

     To logicians, the word "utile" is hardly obsolete. Nor is that a comprehensive definition. It means, literally, "full of use(s)", as in "frequently employed for a variety of purposes."

     To wit, if your home were about to go up in flames a fire extinguisher would certainly be useful. Handy. If that is its only purpose, though, it isn't considered "utile", even if you battle conflagrations with it every day.

     A Swiss Army knife has a number of various applications. If it languishes in our drawer all of our lives, though, it isn't considered "utile". Yes, it is useful, but only in theory.

Let me cite an albeit crude example. Suppose you decide to take salads to work for your lunch. For a dollar or two you buy bowls like the one pictured here. You mix in your dressing before going to work but the texture is unsatisfactory. Plan B: dressing on the side. This works for a few days but carrying a separate container is inconvenient.

Buying salads at a restaurant or cafeteria is expensive and, perhaps, unpalatable. While walking past a kiosk you spot the apparent solution to your problem:

     Brilliant! A bowl with an insert at the top for a dressing canister! All self-contained! Just to be safe, you buy a few extras. Toss a plastic fork into your lunch box and you're good to go!

     The satisfaction lasts a week or so. Perhaps without a concrete, apparent reason, you lose enthusiasm and give up on your veggie lunches.

     What happened?

     Chances are good the hassle of remembering disposable utensils contributed to the loss of enthusiasm. Maybe one broke, leaving you high and dry.

     As the picture to the right illustrates, something was missing from your kit: a durable knife and fork that attaches to the box itself (along with a dressing vial). In short, the two bowls above were insufficiently utile. Lacking utility. Inutile.

     If poetry's only purpose were to bore people with attempts to show how clever or profound we are it would be inutile. Nobody would read it.

     Oh, wait...

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Ta Da!

From "Horizontal Language":

Japanese separates vowels, employing hiatus where we might use diphthong or composites. For example, where we hear one syllable with one vowel sound in "bike" the Japanese will hear three abbreviated sounds:

"Bu-" as in "but" + "eek" as in "...a mouse!" + exhalation, like a schwa

In Japanese prosody a mora is an "on": a vowel sound with or without a consonant--but no more than one consonant--sound. The style of haiku with 5-7-5 "syllables" actually has 5-7-5 "sounds" (or tempi, moras or "on").

In the first stanza of "Beans" we learned one way to lend a sense of finality to our endings:

September came like winter's
ailing child but
left us
viewing Valparaiso's pride. Your face was
always saddest when you smiled. You smiled as every
doctored moment lied. You lie with
orphans' parents, long
reviled.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #13

     See how, of the many two-syllable words, only the last one fits the base [in this case, iambic, de-DUM] rhythm? This is called [classical] diaeresis. Today we're going to look at a way of adding finality or its opposite, suspense, to the ends of our thoughts, phrases, sentences, stanzas, poems, paragraphs, jokes, stories, reports or pieces. World class comedians and Japanese prosodists understand this technique but it is largely unknown or overlooked elsewhere.

     Japanese is a language made up of vowels broken by single consonantal sounds. A word like "sandman" wouldn't exist in such environs. Too many consonantal sounds mashed together with no intervening vowel. Thus, "syllables" in Japanese, when they have a consonant at all, are either vowel-consonant or consonant-vowel, like "ape" versus "pay" in English. Over the centuries, prosodists have discovered that this order leaves an effect on the listener that spans language and culture.

     Consider these two old punch lines:

1. Diplomacy:

     The ability to tell a person to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

2. How do you get Arts graduates off your porch?

     Pay them for the pizza.


Earl the Squirrel's Rule #1	38

     Audiences will understand and laugh at the first joke immediately. It comes with an air of arrival, decisiveness, completion. The impact of the second joke won't be as instantaneous. It requires a little processing, lending an iota of doubt to the proceedings. Will your friends get it? [Yes, but give them a moment.]

     Note that the last word of the first joke is "trip", ending in a close-lipped hard consonant, "p". The second culminates in "pizza", with an open-mouth vowel sound. Sudden, brief consonant sounds (e.g. b, d, g in "get", k/q, p, t) are decisive, conclusive, terminal. This we call "cardus" (adjective: "cardic"). It is along the lines of adding an exclamation mark.

     Longer vowel sounds (e.g. a, e, i, o, u, y, and consonants producing vowel sounds: h, w and r) lend a more nuanced sense of uncertainty, implication or progression. This we call "pembrus" (adjective: "pembric"). It is similar to using ellipses, minus the melodrama.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #178

     Between these two extremes are endings with longer consonantal sounds such as f, j or g as in "judge", m, n, s, v, x, z and the "zh" sound in "pleasure". These don't produce either effect.

     Because they involve vowel sounds, all pembric endings are open (i.e. produced without closures in the throat or mouth). Other terminations can be open, involving an exhalation like the "e"/schwa ending "Porsche". To illustrate, the Japanese word "on" is pronounced like "I own this" as opposed to saying "the letter 'n'", where many speakers will aspirate a short, almost indetectable "uh" after the "n". In the preambulatory quote from "Horizontal Language" [above] we saw "bike" as an open cardus. This blunts the cardic effect, as combining consonantal sounds does. For example, the author of "Beans" used "reviled" to ameliorate the hard stanza break. Had it ended the poem she might have used another term (e.g. "abhorred", but fitting the rhyme scheme).

     Speaking of DPK, "Heartbreaker" (generally regarded as her worst poem) illustrates pembrus:

Let us speak of rumors first. The pallid truth can wait till later.
Did she kneel before a rosary of priests behind the chapel?
Lenny says she loved a man too many. Freddy White went further,

saying she would writhe to any occasion; she would consummate her
nightly nuptials, leaving each new orchard after biting every apple.
It will rain champagne before I tell you that I loved her.

     The pronoun "her" is made up entirely of vowel sounds: h, schwa, r. Despite the warning in the first sentence, the truth comes as a surprise after all of this salacious gossip. It doesn't end the reading of the story; it commences the rereading.

     Take a new look at some of your favorite poems and speeches. See how often and how deftly great poets and orators use pembrus and cardus.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Substition

From the Urban Dictionary:

Substition = "The opposite of a superstition, a substition is the belief in something that is utterly true."

- Coined by Terry Pratchett in 'Making Money'.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #180

     Progress occurs less often by proving theories correct than by proving them wrong.

     Every creative person I know has been accused of abandoning projects. The rest of the world regards them as quitters. Is this anecdotal? Stereotypical? Prejudicial?

     No.

     It is inevitable.

     Inventors and writers give up on ideas simply because they have so many of them. People who accomplish every goal likely don't conceive many. It's not just that they don't set many; the ones they do concentrate on and bring to fruition were either someone else's idea or among few inspirations they've had. They can be like a sterile couple bragging that they've never put a baby up for adoption.

     Some might marvel at a planet that has the precise circumstances we need for survival: oxygen (including water), air pressure, ray filtering, temperature, gravity, meteor protection, etc. We might ascribe our existence to coincidence or any number of superstitious causes. The simple fact is that without these cosmic conditions in place we'd never be here to observe them. Each of these, and every other known variation of them, is a conditio sine qua non. Once all of them are in place, creation is inevitable. Once all of these ducks are in a row the presence of life isn't a miracle; the conspicuous absence of it could be, though.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #50

Superstition involves forsaking the search long before its destination. People speak of "the god of the gaps", where any unexplainable noumena or phenomena becomes a theological question. With time, this abdication of reason occurs earlier and earlier in the process. Societies end up spending more time rationalizing the explication than looking at the problem. St. Augustine's comment "I no longer dream of the stars" may have set human science back fifteen centuries. Similar Luddism struck other burgeoning civilizations. People prefer immediate answers to verifiable ones.

Substition is the opposite. It is not necessarily a commitment to the scientific method; it may simply be I'm-from-Missouri pragmatism and a practical, empirical insistence on pursuing what works. It is the disappearing ability to watch 50 years of abject failure and infer that maybe--just maybe--we ain't doin' this right. Substition is the realization that, like everything else, poetry is a knowledge that requires learning and a skill that requires practice. As blindingly obvious as this sounds, it directly contradicts the prevailing "wisdom" and is an excellent way to lose friends within the "poetry community" itself.

     Currently, almost all of our resources are tied up in creating more writers in the superstitious belief that art is a miracle produced randomly by ten million primates over 100 years. Lazy pseudo-intellectuals and teen angsters of all ages, each suffering from delusions of interest, dominate the stages and pages. Not least among the drawbacks to his approach is the fact that we were hoping for a poem or two in our lifetimes. Flukes do happen but, even at poetry's height, they don't stand the test of time. Also, by completely ignoring the audience (tina) such that nobody reads poetry, there won't be anyone to recognize any masterpiece if and when it emerges.

     It seems we're confused the unavoidability of failure with the inevitability of success.

      It's like the parable of the seeds on rocky soil. After a while, we aren't really planting crops; we're feeding birds. It's not like we prepared the ground. It's not like we taught our children the definition of poetry, the difference between iambs and trochees, the rudiments of performing or even the fact that its all about audiences, not writers or readers.

    Your feedback is appreciated!

    Please take a moment to comment or ask questions below. Failing that, please 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 follow us, contact us confidentially or blog here as "Gray for a Day" please befriend us, "Earl Gray", on Facebook.

    We look forward to hearing from you.

Signed,

Earl Gray, Esquirrel

Friday, July 10, 2015

Poetry?

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #162

     Because nobody reads poetry it has been forced to rely on private and public funding. The vast majority of this is concentrated in the hands of The Poetry Foundation, thanks to the Ruth Lilly bequest. Recently, this largesse has culminated in the publication of this noteworthy effort by Naomi Morris.

     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

4. Does this show respect for subscribers?

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

9. Given the paucity of prepubescent subscribers, what was the targeted demographic? Are there really people who don't understand the difference between this and poetry?

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?