Beside the point

Intended audience. I mean, I do get PW--literally. I read the magazine, and I know its audience. In fact, I am its audience. I'd guess a healthy majority of the editors and publicists and publishers and other book industry people who make up PW's readership are women. That would mirror the industry itself.

All beside the point. But so is "the kind of compartmentalized commentary that men tend to be comfortable with," Josh suggests is behind the oversight. Even though that kind of gender-based split may exist, it's not a primary concern in this kind of article, or shouldn't be. (Update: & speaking of gender differences in online behavior, go see Jessica's blog from yesterday. Sorry I didn't point to that sooner.)


In fact, the article says things like: "The Internet is where poetry proliferates."

"Ever at the cutting edge, poetry may have finally found its ideal medium, one in which money, at least, is hardly a factor: the Internet."

&

"In recent years, poets and poetry enthusiasts have been organically developing a network of linked online poetry publications, blogs and other related sites[....] And thousands of readers are logging on. The Web is allowing poets and publishers of poetry—both the big houses and the many independent, nonprofit and university presses—direct access to their readers."

There were no qualifying statements made that critical writing or poetics-based explorations were the norm in this arena--and they are not--and that those kinds of contributions are only made by men--and they are not. But the article sure as hell gives the impression that they are, despite the fact that the author of the article seems to know better.

Anne, Josh & Tony all wonder if the dominant print model and efforts to legitimize poetry's online inroads in a nonthreatening way--to assimilate, and ease the establishment into the change by focusing on its similarities to the old-school--is partially to blame. OK, I'll buy some of that too.

But. But.