Continued

I did misread Jordan's last comment yesterday. I thought I may have, which is why I began with a request for clarification. Jumping to conclusions can cause serious injury. (I wasn't offended by the fact that I thought you disagreed with me, J. Any heat you feel emanating from that post is my old-news disillusionment with the business I thought I was born to work in. The post I wrote last night was a continuation of what you & I were talking about yesterday, but was more generally addressed, and so's this one, after I close these parens.) I just felt compelled to write a little bit more about why I thought both Ron's lament about what did/didn't appear in the WP poetry feature and what some responses to his post seemed to be saying were off track.

I don't know how many bad (or do-nothing) poems are in magazines, because I don't read that many magazines. (Then again, I don't think anybody reads as many magazines as Jordan does!)

I do read magazines, of course, and I rotate a handful of subscriptions among the little print mags I love, and buy additional single copies. I read many more magazines (or partial magazines) online than I do in print. For me, it's a matter of both time and space. (You should see our apt.) My own preferred way to read a poet is in book (or chapbook) form--a concentrated shot. Some magazines, like No Tell Motel & Carve, let me get the best of both worlds. Just my preference. I understand the importance and appeal of the 1-3 poems per poet X a couple dozen poets format.

I'm not very interested in making any kind of statement about poetry I don't like. I do make those judgments, naturally. I've played gatekeeper (book editor, magazine editor, publisher) and find that role an awkward fit too (as much as I've enjoyed it), because my taste is just my taste. There are editors who see themselves as endorsers/approval-stampers & those that think of themselves mainly as readers/collectors. (I'm one of the latter. And when I agree with an editor of the former type, I naturally think she's brilliant.) There are plenty of people who go cuckoo for stuff I'm indifferent to, and vice versa. So I'm gonna stop short of agreeing that the proliferation of poetry is a problem & quality-control is a pivotal problem. The curb feelers on that bus seem to be reaching toward...well, I don't know. I'm just not comfortable saying that poems that don't do it for me might not do it for somebody, and that anything that doesn't do it for me is piling up in such a way as to interfere with what I do enjoy, to a degree that I need to worry about cleaning things up around here. I skip what I don't like and trust that everybody else can & will do the same. I'd be interested in hearing more about the quality-control problem, as you see it, though.

I can't find any reason to disagree with you, dear Mr. Robot, about how to make sure one's own work is best prepared for publication. I hope your lunch was delicious.