Web Hype
Elisa Gabbert begins her blog post, “Publish the Poem, Not the Poet” with the following anecdote-
Going through Absent subs lately, I’ve been reading a lot of poems that feel basically perfunctory. They are perfectly competent poems written by poets who have every indication of being good writers: I recognize their names and the places that they’ve been published; their credentials are impressive; often I’m already pretty familiar with their work. (Everyone submits to and gets published in the same online journals, for the most part.) But the poems are merely competent; they have no [oomph/je ne sais quoi/duende/poetry]. It’s like the poet wrote them just because you gotta write something. These writers are probably capable of turning out a “publishable” poem any day of the week.
The post is worth reading in full. Also interesting is the comments section, where there’s a lively thread going. It seems, for the most part, that people are in agreement with her, some of them quite vocally so. Personally, I felt my own agreement-strings tugged hard at the out-set, but then the upwelling of a consensus so perfectly in line with my own made me distrust my own first instinct. If we’re all in such fine agreement on what the problem is (that is, the problem of “competence,” as outlined above; later EG introduces and “image vs. idea” argument with a highly tentative relationship to the ostensible initial concern of the post) then why has the problem not resolved itself by dint of our own collectively adjusted behaviors? Is there anyone out there who knowingly practices the poetry of mere competence, or sufficiency? Is there a describable (defensible) logic or ethos informing such practice? I would love to hear from that person or those people. Also, does anyone want to make the argument FOR publishing the poet rather than the poem? I actually think there’s a strong, albeit difficult argument to be made for this practice, though not necessarily as it applies to the mid-rangers and “competents” EG is talking about. DISCUSS!
Tags: absent, elisa gabbert
Publish the poem, love the poet.
Publish the poem, love the poet.
Mumblish the poem, mumblish the poet.
Mumblish the poem, mumblish the poet.
The argument from the editor’s perspective is obviously to get more people to read your journal. Draw people in with a couple big names and hope they stick around to read the rest. The problem is when the journal is nothing but names (even if they’re just mid-range competents) and no exciting work. Who cares how many people are reading your journal if none of them are going to be moved (or they only *think* they’re moved because they know they like X poet and why should this poem be any different)? What are you showing off if not good work/editorial skill?
Here’s why it keeps happening: Editors want people to link to and read their journal. Poets want to be published. Even if it’s not your “best work,” getting published is an ego boost. So it’s a mutually beneficial system.
BTW: If I’d known so many people would end up reading that post (it got Bookslutted, Rumpused, Daily Dished and now HTML Gianted), I might not have cobbled together two unrelated ideas. Well, they’re related, but only because I’m tired of reading mediocre work in journals, and tired of getting mediocre work in the Absent inbox. And often they’re mediocre in similar ways.
Anyway thanks for the link/discussion! Peace~
The argument from the editor’s perspective is obviously to get more people to read your journal. Draw people in with a couple big names and hope they stick around to read the rest. The problem is when the journal is nothing but names (even if they’re just mid-range competents) and no exciting work. Who cares how many people are reading your journal if none of them are going to be moved (or they only *think* they’re moved because they know they like X poet and why should this poem be any different)? What are you showing off if not good work/editorial skill?
Here’s why it keeps happening: Editors want people to link to and read their journal. Poets want to be published. Even if it’s not your “best work,” getting published is an ego boost. So it’s a mutually beneficial system.
BTW: If I’d known so many people would end up reading that post (it got Bookslutted, Rumpused, Daily Dished and now HTML Gianted), I might not have cobbled together two unrelated ideas. Well, they’re related, but only because I’m tired of reading mediocre work in journals, and tired of getting mediocre work in the Absent inbox. And often they’re mediocre in similar ways.
Anyway thanks for the link/discussion! Peace~
is there a universal wow factor beyond competency or is greater-than-competent art only differentiated by preference. i dont know about publishing poets vs. poems or vice versa. ive probably thought this before but today it sounds weird to me. the problem i often have with ideas in art is that ideas are always either not new or too easily arguable so i prefer ideas in nonfic than in poems or fiction, or if there is going to be an idea make it be more about how the idea came at me. preference! does that mean i am merely thinking competently? I think elisas gripe bubbles from a more general disappointment of the slush not being in line with expectations and then trying to come up with an objective reason for it. no writer *knowingly* practices competence, or i cant imagine that anyway, but what is competent to one is groundbreaking to another, and it certainly veers more toward a writer thinking their writing is groundbreaking when it is merely competent because its difficult for a writer to read their work through eyes other than the eyes that belong to them, the writer of the work, let alone an editor who is probably much more well read than them.
is there a universal wow factor beyond competency or is greater-than-competent art only differentiated by preference. i dont know about publishing poets vs. poems or vice versa. ive probably thought this before but today it sounds weird to me. the problem i often have with ideas in art is that ideas are always either not new or too easily arguable so i prefer ideas in nonfic than in poems or fiction, or if there is going to be an idea make it be more about how the idea came at me. preference! does that mean i am merely thinking competently? I think elisas gripe bubbles from a more general disappointment of the slush not being in line with expectations and then trying to come up with an objective reason for it. no writer *knowingly* practices competence, or i cant imagine that anyway, but what is competent to one is groundbreaking to another, and it certainly veers more toward a writer thinking their writing is groundbreaking when it is merely competent because its difficult for a writer to read their work through eyes other than the eyes that belong to them, the writer of the work, let alone an editor who is probably much more well read than them.
Yeah, it’s the trouble with the internet- just when you think no one’s watching…. And I fully understand what you were saying in the post about the WHY of this- we deal with the same thing over at the Agriculture Reader. And I’m with your elaboration in this comment– yes, if Ashbery comes knocking, you take what he gives you, because he’s Ashbery. But here’s a maybe more refined version of what I’m pondering– does an admittedly lesser poem of Ashbery’s not have a genuine, abiding value by dint of the mere fact that Ashbery wrote it? I think the question is actually harder to answer as an editor (where there’s politics involved, the journal’s PR needs to think about, AND the editor’s possible concerns about their own integrity, etc.) than as a reader. As a reader, I have absolutely no problem saying that my interest in and respect for Ashbery as a person and as a body of work means that his fizzles and failures may well be more interesting to me than the successes and triumphs of some other poet I care about less. This is, of course, in absolute contradiction to the conclusion I drew about “anonymous reviewing” in the last Believer piece I wrote, but I think that these conflicting truths form a useful paradox, rather than a set of merely mutual exclusions.
But the question, in the end, has to do with how high you set your bar. Ashbery is probably a bad example, because as far as contemporary poetry is concerned, he might as well be Shakespeare. Thinking about this AS an editor, you’re talking about drawing two scales, one which rates a poem’s aesthetic/literary value and another which rates the value of its poet. Then you have to see how far apart those ratings are from each other. If someone sends you the best poem you’ve ever read, you may have made your mind up to publish the work before you even learn their name. Ditto, if someone sends you the worst piece of shit you can’t conscience bringing into the world. But it’s the broad middle where things get weird.
How much “name-value” does a poet have to have before they become a “name” poet? Does Stephen Dunn have it? Does Dean Young? Does Katie Degentesh? Does Elisa Gabbert?
I think another important question is name-value to whom? To the editor? To the presumptive readership?
Your use of Matt Henriksen was actually very funny to me, because before I understood that you were holding the poem up as exemplary of a “poem of ideas” I thought briefly that you were tagging Matt as a guy who is a coasting “name-guy” kind of writer. And of course neither of us thinks that–I admire Matt’s work greatly, as I believe you do too–and we won’t be seeing him on the cover of Poets & Writers this year (at least I don’t think we will) but in the sub-genre of poetry where you and I dwell, things like Typo, Narwhal, Cannibal etc. are all BIG-TIME SHIT. At least they seem that way to me. So you see how easy it is to get lost in the swamp of relativity…
Yeah, it’s the trouble with the internet- just when you think no one’s watching…. And I fully understand what you were saying in the post about the WHY of this- we deal with the same thing over at the Agriculture Reader. And I’m with your elaboration in this comment– yes, if Ashbery comes knocking, you take what he gives you, because he’s Ashbery. But here’s a maybe more refined version of what I’m pondering– does an admittedly lesser poem of Ashbery’s not have a genuine, abiding value by dint of the mere fact that Ashbery wrote it? I think the question is actually harder to answer as an editor (where there’s politics involved, the journal’s PR needs to think about, AND the editor’s possible concerns about their own integrity, etc.) than as a reader. As a reader, I have absolutely no problem saying that my interest in and respect for Ashbery as a person and as a body of work means that his fizzles and failures may well be more interesting to me than the successes and triumphs of some other poet I care about less. This is, of course, in absolute contradiction to the conclusion I drew about “anonymous reviewing” in the last Believer piece I wrote, but I think that these conflicting truths form a useful paradox, rather than a set of merely mutual exclusions.
But the question, in the end, has to do with how high you set your bar. Ashbery is probably a bad example, because as far as contemporary poetry is concerned, he might as well be Shakespeare. Thinking about this AS an editor, you’re talking about drawing two scales, one which rates a poem’s aesthetic/literary value and another which rates the value of its poet. Then you have to see how far apart those ratings are from each other. If someone sends you the best poem you’ve ever read, you may have made your mind up to publish the work before you even learn their name. Ditto, if someone sends you the worst piece of shit you can’t conscience bringing into the world. But it’s the broad middle where things get weird.
How much “name-value” does a poet have to have before they become a “name” poet? Does Stephen Dunn have it? Does Dean Young? Does Katie Degentesh? Does Elisa Gabbert?
I think another important question is name-value to whom? To the editor? To the presumptive readership?
Your use of Matt Henriksen was actually very funny to me, because before I understood that you were holding the poem up as exemplary of a “poem of ideas” I thought briefly that you were tagging Matt as a guy who is a coasting “name-guy” kind of writer. And of course neither of us thinks that–I admire Matt’s work greatly, as I believe you do too–and we won’t be seeing him on the cover of Poets & Writers this year (at least I don’t think we will) but in the sub-genre of poetry where you and I dwell, things like Typo, Narwhal, Cannibal etc. are all BIG-TIME SHIT. At least they seem that way to me. So you see how easy it is to get lost in the swamp of relativity…
I HATE poems that are “look how clever I am in how I talk about how the weather cleverly mirrors my feelings” poems – which seem to fit into the “description” box. They’re trite and self indulgent.
____
Publish the poem, eath the poet’s face.
I HATE poems that are “look how clever I am in how I talk about how the weather cleverly mirrors my feelings” poems – which seem to fit into the “description” box. They’re trite and self indulgent.
____
Publish the poem, eath the poet’s face.
Yes, it really is all relative. I think there probably is value in publishing/reading middling to crappyish work by Ashbery. But Ashbery isn’t submitting to Absent (yet). What about a Dottie Lasky or a Blake Butler? I feel like they’re basically famous in our corner of the Internet, and they can probably get anything they write published if they want to — maybe not in Ploughshares, but somewhere. Is that a bad thing? Not for their superfans. I don’t begrudge writers for sending out middling work (especially if editors are begging for it). I just prefer to (try to) publish poems I really love. Getting stuff I merely like from poets who have written stuff I love is hard.
We’re totally on the same page re: Matt Henriksen.
Yes, it really is all relative. I think there probably is value in publishing/reading middling to crappyish work by Ashbery. But Ashbery isn’t submitting to Absent (yet). What about a Dottie Lasky or a Blake Butler? I feel like they’re basically famous in our corner of the Internet, and they can probably get anything they write published if they want to — maybe not in Ploughshares, but somewhere. Is that a bad thing? Not for their superfans. I don’t begrudge writers for sending out middling work (especially if editors are begging for it). I just prefer to (try to) publish poems I really love. Getting stuff I merely like from poets who have written stuff I love is hard.
We’re totally on the same page re: Matt Henriksen.
Publish the poeme, what poete.
Publish the poeme, what poete.
Also, does anyone want to make the argument FOR publishing the poet rather than the poem? I actually think there’s a strong, albeit difficult argument to be made for this practice, though not necessarily as it applies to the mid-rangers and “competents” EG is talking about. DISCUSS!
I was gonna jump here and make this argument, but you’ve pretty much summed it up in your comments Justin.
I think it is fair to say that if an author is big enough, his lesser works could be more interesting to read than slightly better work by an unknown. Say, a lesser David Foster Wallace story. He has an importance and an influence that lends his lesser works something. We can compare works from big authors to their other works and bounce them off each other, reveal things. Etc.
This is not to say that any story by any “name” author should be published or that the current literary magazine standards are correct, of course.
Also, does anyone want to make the argument FOR publishing the poet rather than the poem? I actually think there’s a strong, albeit difficult argument to be made for this practice, though not necessarily as it applies to the mid-rangers and “competents” EG is talking about. DISCUSS!
I was gonna jump here and make this argument, but you’ve pretty much summed it up in your comments Justin.
I think it is fair to say that if an author is big enough, his lesser works could be more interesting to read than slightly better work by an unknown. Say, a lesser David Foster Wallace story. He has an importance and an influence that lends his lesser works something. We can compare works from big authors to their other works and bounce them off each other, reveal things. Etc.
This is not to say that any story by any “name” author should be published or that the current literary magazine standards are correct, of course.
To address the problem we are probably all in agreement over, you ask why it hasn’t resolved itself and I imagine part of the problem is with the whole slush system. Writers have been trained to carpet bomb their work to every place they can find and often not care where they publish or if their work is their best (I know this has been discussed on here a lot). On the flip side, with so little money in lit mags, trained editors can’t spend their whole lives reading the massive mountain of slush a big magazine gets. So you end up hiring underqualified people to be readers. Often undergrads or new MFA students if you are connected to a university. These readers are trained to toss out 90% of the work they get, because there is so much of it. Consequently a poem that is competently done is probably the easiest thing to pass on to the real editor. When you plowing through 200 awful poems the first one that is publishible and competant will jump out, even if it isn’t exactly exciting.
Or am I off base?
To address the problem we are probably all in agreement over, you ask why it hasn’t resolved itself and I imagine part of the problem is with the whole slush system. Writers have been trained to carpet bomb their work to every place they can find and often not care where they publish or if their work is their best (I know this has been discussed on here a lot). On the flip side, with so little money in lit mags, trained editors can’t spend their whole lives reading the massive mountain of slush a big magazine gets. So you end up hiring underqualified people to be readers. Often undergrads or new MFA students if you are connected to a university. These readers are trained to toss out 90% of the work they get, because there is so much of it. Consequently a poem that is competently done is probably the easiest thing to pass on to the real editor. When you plowing through 200 awful poems the first one that is publishible and competant will jump out, even if it isn’t exactly exciting.
Or am I off base?
i dont know if i buy this. the intrinsic value of a lesser work by a morer name is tangential to its artistic value.
i dont know if i buy this. the intrinsic value of a lesser work by a morer name is tangential to its artistic value.
I suppose what I am saying is intrinsic value is not the only value that a piece of work can have.
I suppose what I am saying is intrinsic value is not the only value that a piece of work can have.
well, anything can have multiple values depending on what one takes from it. what i am saying is when you start drifting from a work’s core value, its artistic value, into other more abstract values, you’re perhaps getting away from what the intention of publication is. i mean if that kind of value fits with what a journal’s aesthetic is thats fine, but i still kind of see all this as poor way of justifying publishing a poet vs. a poem.
if i read a lesser work by a big name in a small journal (or any journal) i dont think, oh this is interesting in comparison… i tend to think its just kind of sad and now have a worse impression of that name. when i read the work of a name, i dont have expounding thoughts about the publication history of said name, or if i do its tangential or asidely. i just read things i like and think about them relative to itself, that’s always the first more important thing for me as a reader.
well, anything can have multiple values depending on what one takes from it. what i am saying is when you start drifting from a work’s core value, its artistic value, into other more abstract values, you’re perhaps getting away from what the intention of publication is. i mean if that kind of value fits with what a journal’s aesthetic is thats fine, but i still kind of see all this as poor way of justifying publishing a poet vs. a poem.
if i read a lesser work by a big name in a small journal (or any journal) i dont think, oh this is interesting in comparison… i tend to think its just kind of sad and now have a worse impression of that name. when i read the work of a name, i dont have expounding thoughts about the publication history of said name, or if i do its tangential or asidely. i just read things i like and think about them relative to itself, that’s always the first more important thing for me as a reader.
the value you are talking about is not really attachable to the work, also. that value exists independently of the work. i dont think you can say a lesser work has that value, the value exists outside the work.
the value you are talking about is not really attachable to the work, also. that value exists independently of the work. i dont think you can say a lesser work has that value, the value exists outside the work.
I’m talking less from a publisher’s perspective than a reader’s perspective. We may say we only want to read the best work every, no matter who by but I doubt that is really true. We probably give work of historical literary importance more value and I’m sure we have all read the whole oeuvre of some authors who we love even though we may know that “objectively” the worst parts of their oeuvre aren’t as good as the best works of authors we have yet to read.
I’m talking less from a publisher’s perspective than a reader’s perspective. We may say we only want to read the best work every, no matter who by but I doubt that is really true. We probably give work of historical literary importance more value and I’m sure we have all read the whole oeuvre of some authors who we love even though we may know that “objectively” the worst parts of their oeuvre aren’t as good as the best works of authors we have yet to read.
“the value you are talking about is not really attachable to the work, also. that value exists independently of the work. i dont think you can say a lesser work has that value, the value exists outside the work.”
But that is exactly my argument.
“the value you are talking about is not really attachable to the work, also. that value exists independently of the work. i dont think you can say a lesser work has that value, the value exists outside the work.”
But that is exactly my argument.
I was just thinking about this tonight—how sometimes I’ll read a poem without knowing who the author is, like in a journal where there are several poems by the same poet and their name isn’t on every page, so you have to flip back and check—and how sometimes I’ll say, that poem is lame, but then I’ll find the name of the author and whoops, look at that, it’s by someone I’m a fan of. Then my opinion of the poem instantly improves. But does it improve only because I’m now associating it with the name, or is it because I’m now considering the poem in relation to the poet’s other work, and thereby making myself think about it a little harder, and seeing that yeah, it really is good… These are things I wonder.
I was just thinking about this tonight—how sometimes I’ll read a poem without knowing who the author is, like in a journal where there are several poems by the same poet and their name isn’t on every page, so you have to flip back and check—and how sometimes I’ll say, that poem is lame, but then I’ll find the name of the author and whoops, look at that, it’s by someone I’m a fan of. Then my opinion of the poem instantly improves. But does it improve only because I’m now associating it with the name, or is it because I’m now considering the poem in relation to the poet’s other work, and thereby making myself think about it a little harder, and seeing that yeah, it really is good… These are things I wonder.
yeah i was talking more from a publishing perspective, that’s what justin was asking. what any given reader finds valuable, i dont know if that should weigh on this just because it varies so much from reader to reader. i mean maybe im giving this an ethical slant, regardless of what readers want, is it what *ought* to be published. should publications be trying to tap into more particular and abstract reader values at the sacrifice of artistic value? im trying to think of a different analogy. this is an interesting discussion by the way. like lets say, maybe this is a stretch, i’ll throw it out there, lets say a publication culls all the names of their subscribers and puts them in a list, then for every submission, the names of characters are cross-checked against common names of subscribers so that more stories will be published that have the same character names to subscriber names, under the idea (and maybe a false idea, under a presumption anyway) that there is a value, however slight, that a reader experiences when reading a character who happens to have the same name as them. ridiculous and hypothetical but kind of shows my point? i dont know. anyway.
yeah i was talking more from a publishing perspective, that’s what justin was asking. what any given reader finds valuable, i dont know if that should weigh on this just because it varies so much from reader to reader. i mean maybe im giving this an ethical slant, regardless of what readers want, is it what *ought* to be published. should publications be trying to tap into more particular and abstract reader values at the sacrifice of artistic value? im trying to think of a different analogy. this is an interesting discussion by the way. like lets say, maybe this is a stretch, i’ll throw it out there, lets say a publication culls all the names of their subscribers and puts them in a list, then for every submission, the names of characters are cross-checked against common names of subscribers so that more stories will be published that have the same character names to subscriber names, under the idea (and maybe a false idea, under a presumption anyway) that there is a value, however slight, that a reader experiences when reading a character who happens to have the same name as them. ridiculous and hypothetical but kind of shows my point? i dont know. anyway.
I totally agree. But who is going to be the first to renounce the practice of carpet-bombing journals? If one is only mildly competent (or even a genius) it’s the easiest (and perhaps only way) to get published. Totally agree about the unqualified readers. Why do journals like Third Coast or Puerto del Sol, just to mention two, let undergrads read for them, when those journals are affiliated with MFA programs? Are they getting that many submissions? How many of those readers are even serious writers? Or readers?
I totally agree. But who is going to be the first to renounce the practice of carpet-bombing journals? If one is only mildly competent (or even a genius) it’s the easiest (and perhaps only way) to get published. Totally agree about the unqualified readers. Why do journals like Third Coast or Puerto del Sol, just to mention two, let undergrads read for them, when those journals are affiliated with MFA programs? Are they getting that many submissions? How many of those readers are even serious writers? Or readers?
as a writer i would argue that, opposed to carpet-bombing, there’s as much or more chance of getting published in a journal one has read and enjoys the aesthetic of enough to understand that their own writing fits that aesthetic and then submit selectively to that journal.
as an editor of course i am pro carpet-bombing. please carpet-bomb your work to abjective.submission@gmail.com
as a writer i would argue that, opposed to carpet-bombing, there’s as much or more chance of getting published in a journal one has read and enjoys the aesthetic of enough to understand that their own writing fits that aesthetic and then submit selectively to that journal.
as an editor of course i am pro carpet-bombing. please carpet-bomb your work to abjective.submission@gmail.com
Agree with this, too. But I think the two are not mutually exclusive. Most good writers–in my opinion–do read lit journals, especially on-line journals. And not just to see if their aesthetic fits with the journal, but because they enjoy reading. But an added benefit, if you’re an intelligent reader, is that you can find a lot of places whose aesthetic matches with yours and still carpet bomb (intelligently). I might carpet bomb, but never randomly. There are places that I wouldn’t touch–and I know wouldn’t touch me–so why waste time beating a dead horse? People who carpet bomb without knowing anything about the journals that they are inflicting themselves upon certainly don’t deserve consideration. But if you love a lot of journals, who wouldn’t want to be published in all of them?
Agree with this, too. But I think the two are not mutually exclusive. Most good writers–in my opinion–do read lit journals, especially on-line journals. And not just to see if their aesthetic fits with the journal, but because they enjoy reading. But an added benefit, if you’re an intelligent reader, is that you can find a lot of places whose aesthetic matches with yours and still carpet bomb (intelligently). I might carpet bomb, but never randomly. There are places that I wouldn’t touch–and I know wouldn’t touch me–so why waste time beating a dead horse? People who carpet bomb without knowing anything about the journals that they are inflicting themselves upon certainly don’t deserve consideration. But if you love a lot of journals, who wouldn’t want to be published in all of them?
fair enough.
though as an editor i don’t agree with this: People who carpet bomb without knowing anything about the journals that they are inflicting themselves upon certainly don’t deserve consideration.
whether you have read abjective or not or know anything about it i dont care, please carpet-bomb all the work youve ever written to abjective.submission@gmail.com
fair enough.
though as an editor i don’t agree with this: People who carpet bomb without knowing anything about the journals that they are inflicting themselves upon certainly don’t deserve consideration.
whether you have read abjective or not or know anything about it i dont care, please carpet-bomb all the work youve ever written to abjective.submission@gmail.com
On the image vs. ideas issue, I was just thinking that the poems, or lines of poetry, that I can recite from memory tend to be “idea poems” (or “idea lines”). It think that this is because while I appreciate and enjoy poems that are primarily descriptive, I tend to “appropriate” idea poems. I don’t know if this is just me. For an example of what I mean: a line from a poem by Helder Camara came to mind the other day. “Hope, without risk, isn’t hope.” It summed up more perfectly than anything else I have encountered exactly why I have been so disappointed with Obama. The poems that stay with me are those that help me to understand and interpret the world, and that means ideas. This is not to belittle beautiful language, imagery, metaphor–but all of those things are deepened, in my opinion, by philosophical underpinnings.
On the image vs. ideas issue, I was just thinking that the poems, or lines of poetry, that I can recite from memory tend to be “idea poems” (or “idea lines”). It think that this is because while I appreciate and enjoy poems that are primarily descriptive, I tend to “appropriate” idea poems. I don’t know if this is just me. For an example of what I mean: a line from a poem by Helder Camara came to mind the other day. “Hope, without risk, isn’t hope.” It summed up more perfectly than anything else I have encountered exactly why I have been so disappointed with Obama. The poems that stay with me are those that help me to understand and interpret the world, and that means ideas. This is not to belittle beautiful language, imagery, metaphor–but all of those things are deepened, in my opinion, by philosophical underpinnings.
I recommend reading journals from back to front, hand over the top of the page to block the name of the author.
I recommend reading journals from back to front, hand over the top of the page to block the name of the author.
Just had an poetry editors meeting for puerto and had very similar discussion. We want to publish stuff that makes you want to write a poem, google the poet and read all their other work, or invent a time machine so we can go back in time and write that poem first. We’ll send you a polite rejection if we feel you know what you’re doing…
Just had an poetry editors meeting for puerto and had very similar discussion. We want to publish stuff that makes you want to write a poem, google the poet and read all their other work, or invent a time machine so we can go back in time and write that poem first. We’ll send you a polite rejection if we feel you know what you’re doing…