Behind the Scenes
A gentle reminder: Publishing your friends is not necessarily cronyism
Cronyism, the practice of promoting some people and excluding others purely on the basis on personal relationships, is bad and to be avoided. The word brings to mind corrupt politicians who award high-ranking posts or lucrative contracts to their old pals when they have no business or training to do the work.
But things work differently in the realm of publishing. When someone publishes a story or poem or even a book by his or her friend, colleague, student, or lover, there’s a good chance that it isn’t an instance of rank favoritism. Many times, the reason the two people are acquainted with the person in the first place has quite a lot to do with their writing.
People become friends through all sorts of avenues, but I would put it to you that most writer-friendships develop because of some overlap in the two people’s aesthetic values and writing styles. What are the chances, really, of meeting another writer at the gym or at some bar? Most people are not, after all, writer-people. So the chances are slim, compared to meeting one at a reading, in an MFA program, or through another writer. If you both picked that reading or that grad school to attend, you probably have something in common already. If you choose to become friends, that’s probably a sign of something even deeper in common, writer-wise.
The same goes perhaps doubly for professors and students. Students seek out programs with professors whose writing they like, and professors select applicants likewise. So if then, later, the professor publishes a few students in an anthology, it’s just an outgrowth of that original affinity, which predates the relationship.
Do you typically become friends with writers whose work you think sucks? Of course there are exceptions, but I myself can’t think of any among my own acquaintance. Every relationship of any kind that I have developed with another writer has originated because of something shared in what we do and like, writing-wise. Shared taste isn’t sufficient for lasting friendship, but it’s certainly instrumental. Physical proximity is the number one predictor of friendship, and I would guess that literary and aesthetic proximity is pretty predictive for writers.
Certainly, there are cases of favoritism in the publishing world, but editing journals, anthologies, and books is a matter of taste (unless it’s big time editing, when there is a question of marketability), and taste is in so many cases bound up in friendship and academic relationships.
Tags: Cronyism
I am so glad you posted this.
Honestly, I often think that I am harder on my friends than strangers. I have published friends, but I have rejected many more than I have accepted.
I am so glad you posted this.
Honestly, I often think that I am harder on my friends than strangers. I have published friends, but I have rejected many more than I have accepted.
agreed, agreed, agreed
most of my fav. works of lit in the world never wouldve seen the light of day were it not for hard work & dedication of various writer’s “cronies”
also another idea, when there is widespread “critical vocabulary anemia” so that people dont know how to critique art without critiquing the person, then maybe there is more cronyism-centered criticism
advent / takeover of academy / english lit. classes by “theory” possible cause for the critical sinkhole of contemporary (young) writers (just my personal experience, above may not be true for other people) — but also funny that (in my exp.) CW classes are one of few places where crit. analysis of text as text happens (as opposed to text as social doc./construction/historical datapoint)
maybe we would never need to worry about who a writer knows or doesnt know — if we knew how to talk about writing
also the awesome problem of poetry’s desire to resist being able to be talked about, cutting out new wordscapes that there is no vocab to describe.. yet
anyway lots of thoughts conjured by this at least in my skull
agreed, agreed, agreed
most of my fav. works of lit in the world never wouldve seen the light of day were it not for hard work & dedication of various writer’s “cronies”
also another idea, when there is widespread “critical vocabulary anemia” so that people dont know how to critique art without critiquing the person, then maybe there is more cronyism-centered criticism
advent / takeover of academy / english lit. classes by “theory” possible cause for the critical sinkhole of contemporary (young) writers (just my personal experience, above may not be true for other people) — but also funny that (in my exp.) CW classes are one of few places where crit. analysis of text as text happens (as opposed to text as social doc./construction/historical datapoint)
maybe we would never need to worry about who a writer knows or doesnt know — if we knew how to talk about writing
also the awesome problem of poetry’s desire to resist being able to be talked about, cutting out new wordscapes that there is no vocab to describe.. yet
anyway lots of thoughts conjured by this at least in my skull
“maybe we would never need to worry about who a writer knows or doesnt know — if we knew how to talk about writing”
amen
“maybe we would never need to worry about who a writer knows or doesnt know — if we knew how to talk about writing”
amen
graph 4 is exactly what i want to write a really long serious piece of journalism about
i never would have linked that to accusations of cronyism…brilliant connection, Crony Leidner
graph 4 is exactly what i want to write a really long serious piece of journalism about
i never would have linked that to accusations of cronyism…brilliant connection, Crony Leidner
Did the Beats publish the Beats? The Lost Generation the Lost Generation?
Here’s one: Do any current or past movie stars repeatedly put their own friends in their movies??
The publishing world is actually pretty small, especially as you get specialized into a certain style or type of writing. How are you NOT going to know each other is my question.
I think sometimes writers ask themselves questions other professions don’t. Maybe we think too much. When I was nurse, I knew hundreds of nurses through work and conferences and networking. Then, when I was a nurse manager, I was in charge of hiring nurses. Of course friends applied. I hired many. So?
A great nurse is a great nurse is a great writer is a …
So on.
Did the Beats publish the Beats? The Lost Generation the Lost Generation?
Here’s one: Do any current or past movie stars repeatedly put their own friends in their movies??
The publishing world is actually pretty small, especially as you get specialized into a certain style or type of writing. How are you NOT going to know each other is my question.
I think sometimes writers ask themselves questions other professions don’t. Maybe we think too much. When I was nurse, I knew hundreds of nurses through work and conferences and networking. Then, when I was a nurse manager, I was in charge of hiring nurses. Of course friends applied. I hired many. So?
A great nurse is a great nurse is a great writer is a …
So on.
I’m actually interested in the connection between paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 — I’ve never thought abt what I would call the “cult of personality” (“people dont know how to critique art without critiquing the person”) having anything to do with social/political/cultural theory-based criticism and analysis. Mark, can you say more abt this?
I’m actually interested in the connection between paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 — I’ve never thought abt what I would call the “cult of personality” (“people dont know how to critique art without critiquing the person”) having anything to do with social/political/cultural theory-based criticism and analysis. Mark, can you say more abt this?
This is a spin on cronyism that makes as much sense as any. But, I think you are wrong in saying the publishing world is different than the political. Everything you said about poets could be said of politicians too, or any other business. In fact, you sound like a politician to me, the whole thing smacks of defensive rationalization. Although I do think it would be hard to be a publishing writer without eventually having friends within the industry. You see, I’m a politician too.
This is a spin on cronyism that makes as much sense as any. But, I think you are wrong in saying the publishing world is different than the political. Everything you said about poets could be said of politicians too, or any other business. In fact, you sound like a politician to me, the whole thing smacks of defensive rationalization. Although I do think it would be hard to be a publishing writer without eventually having friends within the industry. You see, I’m a politician too.
Friends should not publish friends. Oh…wait.
Friends should not publish friends. Oh…wait.
Yeah plus I’d like to hear more about “poetry’s desire to resist being able to be talked about” – Mark you’ve got posts in your pants leg.
Yeah plus I’d like to hear more about “poetry’s desire to resist being able to be talked about” – Mark you’ve got posts in your pants leg.
maybe that reigning theory prizes social / pol. cultural critique over what i guess i would call old school type criticism, like formal or rhetorical criticism?
like what is the poet trying to say? how are they saying it? how do things like rhythm and image contribute to that meaning? is that meaning interesting or beautiful.. like the kinds of stuff we talk about in CW classes.. i suppose.. on a fundamental level, how meaning is created w/language.. craft questions.. etc
but if that isn’t going on in lit classes, and those models arent being applied to ‘classic texts’ then i think it creates an undereducated (in terms of rhet. analysis) writing class..
so when we see poems in journals that are full of ‘interesting language’ it becomes then (at least for me) to be specific about my evaluation of that poem.. it either ‘has interesting language’ or not.. or ‘i like it’ or i dont..
which is frustrating and boring.. so people maybe look for other ways to critique work (similarly to how writers often look outside writing (translation, starting presses, starting zines, attending conferences, starting reading series.. as subconscious effort to authenticate their own work..) by looking outside the text for critical scoring opportunities too..
anyway, the point is (this is all conjecture), IF there’s a deficit of old-ass critical analysis in lit classes (deconstruction divorced social/political context… IF such a thing is possible..), then one would expect the students (like myself) that lit classes crank out to be sucky in those types of critical powers—-but critical energies dormant within are natural/primordial forces! and cannot be denied–thus, for lack of their formal/rhet. vocabulary/facility, writers (incidentally, also desperate to carve out reputations for themselves as critically engaged) carp about stuff other than the text.. ?
anyway that’s probably redundant and overlong but i’m not editing it life is too short
another idea: how does meaning flow: text toward life, or life toward text? re: cult of personality, i picture some genius in the heyday of dada deciding ‘i’m going to make something that has no value as art, and call it art, put it in a gallery, etc’ — but because that guy is a respected artist (cult of personality) suddenly it is profound
and i think it is truly profound — so i’m not saying cult of personality / extra-text is bad, or a worse source of meaning — i think it’s like an ouroboros
i am currently in my mind and brain “all about paradox” / trying to get comfortable with it / find the difference between it (good) and doublespeak (bad) / i think ‘formal’ ‘self-truth’ (“true to form”) is key?
if ]form is complexxx
which is a) why i wish i woulda had more of that type of education, and b) perhaps problematic b/c i’m a white male.. so of course i would privilege non-social/pol/cultural lenses/rubrics for truth/art
i also have to click submit comment at some point so here
maybe that reigning theory prizes social / pol. cultural critique over what i guess i would call old school type criticism, like formal or rhetorical criticism?
like what is the poet trying to say? how are they saying it? how do things like rhythm and image contribute to that meaning? is that meaning interesting or beautiful.. like the kinds of stuff we talk about in CW classes.. i suppose.. on a fundamental level, how meaning is created w/language.. craft questions.. etc
but if that isn’t going on in lit classes, and those models arent being applied to ‘classic texts’ then i think it creates an undereducated (in terms of rhet. analysis) writing class..
so when we see poems in journals that are full of ‘interesting language’ it becomes then (at least for me) to be specific about my evaluation of that poem.. it either ‘has interesting language’ or not.. or ‘i like it’ or i dont..
which is frustrating and boring.. so people maybe look for other ways to critique work (similarly to how writers often look outside writing (translation, starting presses, starting zines, attending conferences, starting reading series.. as subconscious effort to authenticate their own work..) by looking outside the text for critical scoring opportunities too..
anyway, the point is (this is all conjecture), IF there’s a deficit of old-ass critical analysis in lit classes (deconstruction divorced social/political context… IF such a thing is possible..), then one would expect the students (like myself) that lit classes crank out to be sucky in those types of critical powers—-but critical energies dormant within are natural/primordial forces! and cannot be denied–thus, for lack of their formal/rhet. vocabulary/facility, writers (incidentally, also desperate to carve out reputations for themselves as critically engaged) carp about stuff other than the text.. ?
anyway that’s probably redundant and overlong but i’m not editing it life is too short
another idea: how does meaning flow: text toward life, or life toward text? re: cult of personality, i picture some genius in the heyday of dada deciding ‘i’m going to make something that has no value as art, and call it art, put it in a gallery, etc’ — but because that guy is a respected artist (cult of personality) suddenly it is profound
and i think it is truly profound — so i’m not saying cult of personality / extra-text is bad, or a worse source of meaning — i think it’s like an ouroboros
i am currently in my mind and brain “all about paradox” / trying to get comfortable with it / find the difference between it (good) and doublespeak (bad) / i think ‘formal’ ‘self-truth’ (“true to form”) is key?
if ]form is complexxx
which is a) why i wish i woulda had more of that type of education, and b) perhaps problematic b/c i’m a white male.. so of course i would privilege non-social/pol/cultural lenses/rubrics for truth/art
i also have to click submit comment at some point so here
i left out the word ‘difficult’
“so when we see poems in journals that are full of ‘interesting language’ it becomes then (at least for me) DIFFICULT to be specific about my evaluation of that poem.. it either ‘has interesting language’ or not.. or ‘i like it’ or i dont..”
i left out the word ‘difficult’
“so when we see poems in journals that are full of ‘interesting language’ it becomes then (at least for me) DIFFICULT to be specific about my evaluation of that poem.. it either ‘has interesting language’ or not.. or ‘i like it’ or i dont..”
3rded.
3rded.
When I get into these cronyism convos, I always fall back on the Beats as an example. I wonder if they faced a lot of criticism on their “cronyism.” I’ve never looked into it, but it’s something I’d be interested in checking out if I got a spare minute or 40.
I’d love to find a bit of writing on this subject by Ferlinghetti.
When I get into these cronyism convos, I always fall back on the Beats as an example. I wonder if they faced a lot of criticism on their “cronyism.” I’ve never looked into it, but it’s something I’d be interested in checking out if I got a spare minute or 40.
I’d love to find a bit of writing on this subject by Ferlinghetti.
I think this happens a lot on this website. A community of mediocre people trying to justify themselves and each other. Not claiming to be better at all. I just know what I read and see.
I think this happens a lot on this website. A community of mediocre people trying to justify themselves and each other. Not claiming to be better at all. I just know what I read and see.
Seconded w regards to criticism – though I’m not an editor (yet)
Seconded w regards to criticism – though I’m not an editor (yet)
For a good example of how to talk about difficult poetry – Either Steve McCaffery’s Prior to Meaning or Jed Rasula’s Syncopations – Rasula on Andrews is one of the best things I’ve ever read
For a good example of how to talk about difficult poetry – Either Steve McCaffery’s Prior to Meaning or Jed Rasula’s Syncopations – Rasula on Andrews is one of the best things I’ve ever read
“the beats”
“the beats”
what do you read and see?
what do you read and see?
Admire the hope here…except that knowing how to talk about writing equates to knowing how to talk about…everything.
I.e. uncircumscribable.
Maybe it can be gotten a little better at, though.
Admire the hope here…except that knowing how to talk about writing equates to knowing how to talk about…everything.
I.e. uncircumscribable.
Maybe it can be gotten a little better at, though.
ha ha now that you’ve posted you’re officially mediocre
ha ha now that you’ve posted you’re officially mediocre
nuts!
nuts!
wait was that at andy or me? now im really confused.
wait was that at andy or me? now im really confused.
This makes sense to me, Mark. But I am still curious about the train of thought that lead you from criticizing focus on authors’ personalities into this, since my experience of the social/cultural/political theory is it rejects any focus on authorial biography or intent and focuses attention on the context in which the text is received and interpreted.
I would like to see “old-school” formal and rhetorical criticism brought into conversation more w/ the social/cultural/political stuff, as somebody interested in both. I do not like or understand what seems to be a polarization between the two. For example — I find Sapphire’s Push to be a very interesting novel formally and in terms of language, and it seems to me Sapphire’s aesthetic choices have a really dynamic relationship w/ the novel’s content and what it accomplishes “politically.” It interests me to talk about these things w/ relation to one another.
This makes sense to me, Mark. But I am still curious about the train of thought that lead you from criticizing focus on authors’ personalities into this, since my experience of the social/cultural/political theory is it rejects any focus on authorial biography or intent and focuses attention on the context in which the text is received and interpreted.
I would like to see “old-school” formal and rhetorical criticism brought into conversation more w/ the social/cultural/political stuff, as somebody interested in both. I do not like or understand what seems to be a polarization between the two. For example — I find Sapphire’s Push to be a very interesting novel formally and in terms of language, and it seems to me Sapphire’s aesthetic choices have a really dynamic relationship w/ the novel’s content and what it accomplishes “politically.” It interests me to talk about these things w/ relation to one another.
i’d third that as well!
i’d third that as well!
Mediocre? Sir, it will five year more of hard work before I make mediocre.
Mediocre? Sir, it will five year more of hard work before I make mediocre.
Tim, now I am curious, what does Push accomplish politically? I should admit my bias in asking–I don’t think novels have any business accomplishing anything political, nor much chance of doing so while still succeeding as art. Politics is so narrow, so topical; who cares now whether Milton supported Cromwell? I just read WCW on Stein: “To be most useful to humanity, or to anything else for that matter, an art, writing, must stay art, not seeking to be science, philosophy, history, the humanities, or anything else it has been made to carry in the past.” I agree totally with that. Of course a novel might have political content; it’s as fine a subject as any, and certainly there can be interesting connections between style and subject–but there’s a total gap between a novel purporting to be about something, and art trying to affect that something outside of itself.
Tim, now I am curious, what does Push accomplish politically? I should admit my bias in asking–I don’t think novels have any business accomplishing anything political, nor much chance of doing so while still succeeding as art. Politics is so narrow, so topical; who cares now whether Milton supported Cromwell? I just read WCW on Stein: “To be most useful to humanity, or to anything else for that matter, an art, writing, must stay art, not seeking to be science, philosophy, history, the humanities, or anything else it has been made to carry in the past.” I agree totally with that. Of course a novel might have political content; it’s as fine a subject as any, and certainly there can be interesting connections between style and subject–but there’s a total gap between a novel purporting to be about something, and art trying to affect that something outside of itself.
There are a few postings on this site that I find either entertaining or useful but I sense a lot of sucking up for the sole purpose of sucking up.
There are a few postings on this site that I find either entertaining or useful but I sense a lot of sucking up for the sole purpose of sucking up.
Your right. I guess since I have posted here criticizing the website for others post I have became mediocre. Nicely put.
Your right. I guess since I have posted here criticizing the website for others post I have became mediocre. Nicely put.
Now you’re mediocre for misusing “your.” Seems like a cheap shot, but you’re already so angry, how could I make it worse?
Shortly after my post I expect to find many more post agreeing with you about the mediocrity of this site/post. This is what I mean about the whole mediocre post thingy. Seems like most people post in response to other people’s postings rather than the actually article. Or without having read the article. Regardless of how ridiculuous it may be.
Now you’re mediocre for misusing “your.” Seems like a cheap shot, but you’re already so angry, how could I make it worse?
Shortly after my post I expect to find many more post agreeing with you about the mediocrity of this site/post. This is what I mean about the whole mediocre post thingy. Seems like most people post in response to other people’s postings rather than the actually article. Or without having read the article. Regardless of how ridiculuous it may be.
Pardon me Sir. You’re. YOU’RE mistaking criticism for anger. I’m posing my observations of this site. These happen to come on this particular post but I don’t know where else to post them.
Pardon me Sir. You’re. YOU’RE mistaking criticism for anger. I’m posing my observations of this site. These happen to come on this particular post but I don’t know where else to post them.
i am so confused.
i am so confused.
oh ok.
oh ok.