The following is the transcript from Foetry.com of a forum held to discredit The American Dissident and its
editor, initiated
by David James Callan, Iowa Writers’ Workshop graduate, Maytag Fellow, two-time
Academy of American Poets prize winner, two-time Bowdoin Poetry prize-winner,
Forbes Rickart Jr. Poetry prize winner,
Associate Member of the
Academy of American Poets, and
foet member of Foetry.com. As editor, I’d rejected Callan's
submission because Callan had not taken the time to read the guidelines of The American Dissident,
especially the part underscoring NOT to send the usual credentials normally
forwarded to other poetry journals. Reading the transcript, you will
discover that the foet cohort believes it succeeded in fully trashing The
American Dissident and its editor. The cohort felt sad for Callan,
concluding the editor had bullied the thin-skinned foet.
What marks this
cohort of foets, more
than anything else, is its adolescent tendency to shoot the messenger with
idiots' epithets and entirely ignore the message. How to
respond to an all-inclusive comment like "your writing sucks" or “he’s a
prick”? Evidently, the only way is to shut the door, which is what the editor
eventually did, though kept it ajar for foets interested in
serious debate. To date, not one foet chose that road. Instead,
cohort entries actually got worse and more puerile. By the way, the foets
are not teenagers, they actually possess college degrees.
The only reason this
page was set up on The American Dissident website is that Alan Cordle,
librarian at one of the largest community colleges and founder of Foetry.com,
got New York Times coverage and was actually able to anger a number of
known literati by exposing corruption in the literary-prize game. The editor
was impressed with what Cordle had done and had even established a link to
Foetry.com. It was thus surprising to read Cordle’s comments in the
forum because lacking in intellect.
As for Curran, he
threatened lawsuit.. Oddly, Harvard poet Jorie Graham had threatened
to sue Cordle. Is that what poets do today? Are they entirely ignorant of what
defamation entails in the legal sense? Does Callan represent the type of
poet the Iowa Writers' Workshop has been mass producing, or is he simply a sad
exception? Is it not odd that someone fighting corruption in the realm of
literary prizes would so readily flaunt literary-prize credentials? Callan
shall be lampooned in the upcoming issue of The American Dissident as a
Maytag fellow (yes, the washing-machine guy!). The editor challenges him to
bring on the lawsuit.
One must wonder why
adolescent-type personalities would choose to become poets in today’s America.
In any case, the cartoon on this page was sketched a year ago when Cordle had
chosen the coward's road of running Foetry.com as an anonymous entity.
Since then, however, someone discovered who he was, forcing him to discard the
cowardly
cloak of anonymity. The cartoon is critical of Cordle, his poet wife, and the
poets he'd criticized. I'd asked Cordle to put the cartoon in the forum, but he
chose to ignore the request... for evident reasons. Interestingly, one of the foets, Matt, sensed something was wrong
with the foets modus operandi, but ended up caving in and behaving like a foet
is supposed to... idiot-like.
Foetry Forum V.2
Poetry Discussion
THE AMERICAN DISSIDENT
I read the entire passage about The American Dissident
in Poet's Market. Here is the lovely letter I received from its editor
today:
From : George Slone
<todslone@yahoo.com>
Sent : Thursday, March 2, 2006 10:27 AM
To :
davidjamescallan@hotmail.com
Subject : The American Dissident
To David James Callan,
Before I can consider your poems, you have to consider
the guidelines for submissions to The American Dissident. It is evident that you
did not even consult them. You may obtain them at
www.theamericandissident.org. By the way, what precisely does being an
Associate Member of the Academy of American Poets entail? How does one ascend to
such a lofty poet position? Can you get the Academy to recognize that The
American Dissident exists? Have you, as magna cum laude and Maytag Fellow (isn’t
that the washing-machine guy?), ever thought about literary prizes, not just
obtaining them, but what kind of intellectual corruption might be occurring
behind the scenes? Have you ever thought about Emerson’s statement: “I am
ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large
societies and dead institutions.”?
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, Editor
David James Callan
I can be reached at:
16 Eldridge St. Apt. 14H
Manchester, CT 06040
(860) 647-6911
davidjamescallan@hotmail.com
TALKING ABOUT COMEDY IS LIKE DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE:
STEVE MARTIN
Posted: Fri Mar
03, 2006 2:25 pm
Post subject: He's a jerk
Don't sweat it,
David. He sounds like a pretentious little prick who knows less about poetry
than you. I'm glad you posted his diatribe here. Now others can save the energy,
time, and stamps.
It's interesting to me that he obviously didn't even
google you. You ARE a dissident. You are naming names. You have a lot more to
lose than he.
_________________
Alan Cordle
Posted: Fri Mar
03, 2006 3:46 pm
Post subject: re: MORE FUN WITH GEORGE
I emailed Mr. Slone,
and said basically: "Sorry to misbehave. I have posted your letter on foetry.com.
Please return my work since I sent the appropriate postage. I will let the folks
at foetry.com know if you returned my stuff." A paraphrase, but that's all I
said. He replied within an hour:
From : George Slone <todslone@yahoo.com>
Sent : Friday, March 3, 2006 9:57 AM
To : David James <davidjamescallan@hotmail.com>
Subject : re: SORRY TO MISBEHAVE, PLEASE RETURN MY WORK
Hi,
You really must have gotten angry or at least indignant
with regards my having placed a few uncomfortable questions before your
magna-cum-lauda mindset. Yes, those with academic/literary badges really do have
a visceral dislike for anyone daring to challenge them. As far as your
"misbehaving," I'm certain you do not do that when "higher-up" canon personages,
organizations, and literary reviews are involved. Why do you with all your
badges and recognition choose to ignore guidelines? Are you sending out so many
innocuous submissions that you simply do not have the time to consult them? Why
are you so desperate to become known, that is, published right and left? What is
the point? Ah, so many questions could be posed... to the brick poesy-machine
wall, n'est-ce pas? BTW, I was unaware Foesy was also involved in decrying
literary journals. No doubt it too will become corrupted, if it already hasn't.
Thirst for fame and recognition inevitably corrupts. Think about that, Maytag
fellow, think about it... if you can still think independently, that is...
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone
Ummmm...why is this dude freaking out about my cover
letter?
I've been on disability for six or seven years, he's
presuming a lot from my letter
He obviously didn't or couldn't read my poems. I know
one of the poems was about a lynching (a real lynching, not the Jorie Graham
kind)--one thing my submission was not was innocuous.
If there are people out there writing poems, I wouldn't
waste time with journals that want you to conform to their ideals and ideas too
much...insisting you buy their zine, or check out their website. Journals should
THANK YOU for submitting, even when rejecting you. Exquisite Corpse makes fun of
some submissions, but in a good-natured way.
How can someone criticize someone for not being an
independent thinker and at the same time insist that they conform as George
does? He reminds me a bit of Jimmy B.: when a person is confrontational about
things that seem baffling to the person confronted, not playing along is called
CHOOSING ONES' BATTLES.
It often does not suggest that the confronter's ideas
are amazing, original, shocking, or even coherent.
And George has no idea whether I am an independent
thinker. He should read one of my poems sometimes. I save my energy for them.
I disagree with Monday Love: criticism is NOT the same
as poetry. Look at all the criticism and all the shit poetry. There's something
about poetry that eludes most of the people who think about it or affect a
stance that they think about it. The world would be full of great poets if
poetry were the same thing as criticism, and it's not.
And the world is not full of great critics, either.
Like Steve Martin said, and Laurie Anderson quoted:
Talking about comedy is like dancing about architecture.
I write poems without consulting anybody, maybe that's
why my cover letter is so short. I could yak about poetry for hours, but I'd
rather write. Same thing at Iowa--a lot of yakking about poetry. Poetry.com is a
lot like Iowa, ironically. Except some of it is hopefully changing things, which
is nice.
_________________
TALKING ABOUT COMEDY IS LIKE DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE:
STEVE MARTIN
I can be reached at:
16 Eldridge St. Apt. 14H
Manchester, CT 06040
(860) 647-6911
davidjamescallan@hotmail.com
Last edited by David James Callan on Fri Mar 03, 2006
7:03 pm; edited 3 times in total
Posted: Fri Mar
03, 2006 4:02 pm
Post subject: RE: MY REPLY TO GEORGE
My reply to George:
http://foetry.com/newbb/viewtopic.php?p=6499#6499
I'll add to this as time goes on. Please return my
stuff.
[Poets: Conserve energy.]
_________________
TALKING ABOUT COMEDY IS LIKE DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE:
STEVE MARTIN
I can be reached at:
16 Eldridge St. Apt. 14H
Manchester, CT 06040
(860) 647-6911
davidjamescallan@hotmail.com
Posted: Fri Mar
03, 2006 4:50 pm
Post subject:
I checked out his
website, David. He's a nut, and writes very bad prose.
Ed Dupree
_________________
"I, too, dislike it: there are things that are important
beyond all this fiddle."
Posted: Fri Mar
03, 2006 4:53 pm
Post subject:
Not to mention how
poorly the website is designed . . . it's a cluttery piece of crap.
_________________
Alan Cordle
Posted: Fri Mar
03, 2006 5:02 pm
Post subject: re: MORE GENERAL THINGS I'VE LEARNED...
I'm between a rock
and a hard-place. Either I'm too academic, not academic enough.
It's really nobody's business what you do, read, who you
associate with, etc. IT REALLY SHOULD BE NOBODY'S BUSINESS WHERE YOU WORK.
Cover letters are a formality, but they certainly do not
reveal the inner secrets of my mind--nor do little blurbs on websites like this.
You'd have to read my four finished manuscripts to even get a hint at what I
WANT my thoughts to be represented as. Which is why I am trying to publish
them--but you have to print PARTS to lead up to printing THE WHOLE THINGS.
SO ANY EDITOR WHO COMPLAINS ABOUT YOU TRYING TO PUBLISH
STUFF IS EITHER OFF HIS ROCKER OR STUPID AND SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING A MAGAZINE.
IT'S LIKE A DENTIST YELLING AT YOU FOR COMING IN WITH A TOOTHACHE. SORT OF.
Then you have: irony, metaphor, symbolism, and all those
nasty literary devices, which leave literal meaning and intended meaning at an
impasse...
Come to think of it, I'll say this again: Poems and
theory, criticism, etc. are NOT even the slightest bit alike. Only critics will
tell you that, or people who write crap poetry that only exists by "backing it
up" with a lot of HOT AIR.
Thanks, Ed. I DON'T have time to read every website out
there, otherwise I wouldn't have time to write. And academic hack that I am, I
haven't been near a school in eight years, can't afford a computer or the
internet, and only through chance have I had access to these things in the past
few months.
I wish I could print the poems I sent to this guy, but
I'm afraid I could never publish them in a journal. Like it or not, publications
do seem to matter to a lot of people, but damned if trying to get published the
past eight years hasn't sucked me dry of energy, which I am now trying to find.
And it is nobody's business who else or what else you
send to other journals as long as there is no conflict with the submission you
sent, i.e.: multiple submissions.
Which brings us back to the beginning, and me not taking
the easy route--not because it was easy but because it was FISHY. And The
American Dissident and its editor seem pretty fishy to me.
And what do you wanna bet I never get my stuff back. If
I was a real academic I probably wouldn't care, but my access to these computers
is running out.
Still, crazy as it sounds, I think writers are more
important than editors. Probably why I have such bad luck. My poems are alright.
_________________
TALKING ABOUT COMEDY IS LIKE DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE:
STEVE MARTIN
I can be reached at:
16 Eldridge St. Apt. 14H
Manchester, CT 06040
(860) 647-6911
davidjamescallan@hotmail.com
Posted: Fri Mar
03, 2006 5:34 pm
Post subject: AND ANOTHER THING...
And another thing.
It is NONSENSE when people claim to be poets who don't
write poems because they at least have their INTEGRITY or whatever.
Poets (and other writers) can be deaf, dumb, and mute,
never talk about poetry, never theorise, but they WRITE. And poets WRITE POEMS.
And if you don't write poems but claim to be some sort
of tragic poet, and I won't analyze your reasons, you're not a poet or a writer.
You're full of hooey. You're a hoo.
And I'm not gonna tell you who told me this, in not as
many words, a long time ago. But it sure would be ironic.
_________________
TALKING ABOUT COMEDY IS LIKE DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE:
STEVE MARTIN
I can be reached at:
DJ Callan
Posted:
Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:02 pm
Post subject: re: GEORGE SAID THIS BUT I DID NOT READ IT
From : George Slone
<todslone@yahoo.com>
Sent : Friday, March 3, 2006 1:37 PM
To : David James <davidjamescallan@hotmail.com>
Subject : Names and badges, is that what poetry has
become today?
DJ,
This is all quite interesting... certainly a lot more
interesting than the poems and letter vaunting your badges and poesy
credentials. What I found to be of particular interest is AC's jumping
immediately on your wagon without even desiring to seek any evidence whatsoever.
This of course diminishes his credibility. I can easily prove by simply sending
your letter and underscoring the part in my guidelines clearly stipulating that
poets not send badges and credentials. BUT I doubt AC or Foesy would be at all
interested in that. If of course he requests that I send the evidence, I shall
do so immediately. I shall have to remove the link to Foesy on my site. It
sounded good, but how disappointing its editor. Lots of facile killing the
messenger responses and sadly from poets with regards your entry. How to get
those poets to understand that logic and evidence are so much more important in
a democracy than simple name-calling. I shall carefully read their responses
tonight and attempt to post a response... again. Unfortunately, it is a pain in
the ass to register on Foesy. I've tried several times today and keeping getting
rejected.
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, Editor
The American Dissident
Posted: Fri Mar
03, 2006 7:11 pm
Post subject: RE: EMAIL SENT TO GEORGE SLONE
Mr. Slone,
Please feel free to have anyone say as they please, but
you do not have permission to print my poems in any way. I will be happy to
email privately anyone concerned who is interested [in reading them].
I will certainly contact lawyers if you print my work on
the Internet or elsewhere without my permission, since you chose to not accept
the poem under the terms inherent in submitting it to your magazine.
Sincerely,
David James Callan
SO: If you want to read the poems he sent and make fun
of them, I will send them to you personally on Monday: e-mail me at
davidjamescallan@hotmail.com. However, please let me know if he publishes my
poems here or elsewhere, because he DOES NOT have permission to print them in
any form. He gave that up this morning.
I believe it is theft of intellectual property.
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:34 pm
Post subject: Ignore him
He
is trying to provoke a response, but he isn't worth talking to -- I'm sure he
won't dare print your poems.
And only a dolt can't figure out how to register here.
_________________
Alan Cordle
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:10 pm
Post subject:
David--
It's a little hard to tell what's going on here, but I
take it that in your cover letter you mentioned too many of your credentials for
Slone's taste. Hell, you may have mentioned too many for my taste, but
it's obvious that the guy has some kind of mania about credentials--probably
because he hasn't been able to get any, because his own "poems" are really
really awful, like those of the "contibutors" to his mag (really just his blog;
have a look and you'll see what I mean.) It's lucky for you he didn't take any
of your poems. Please don't waste any thought on this crank.
Ed
_________________
"I, too, dislike it: there are things that are important
beyond all this fiddle."
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:38 pm
Post subject: Wow!
I
checked out the guy's website/blog/journal/whatever. Not since Dan Schneider
have I seen such an amazing combination of arrogance and lack of talent. What a
complete dipshit!
Poet K
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:38 pm
Post subject:
Well, I've just read through the tedious comments. It appears there are only
three Foet Clones commenting, so it's no big deal at all. In fact, your forum is
boring. Alan Cordel needs a lesson in logical argumentation. Sure, my site looks
cluttered and isn't pretty like his site. Sure, the quotes and essays by
Solzhenitsyn, Emerson, Havel, Thoreau, Douglas, Orwell, etc. suck... You come
off as a bunch of adolescents. AC's photo even looks puerile. How can anyone
take your critique on Foet Prizes seriously if you behave thusly? I sure as hell
wanted to take it seriously, but how can I?
Anyhow, all of this inanity is over one desperate for
fame poetaster, David, who didn't take the time to read my guidelines, which
expressly state SEND NO CREDENTIALS. But rather, tell me what turned you against
the machine, etc. And what did I get from, David? WashingMaching Fellow,
IowaWriterSchoolCloneProduct, FoetPrizeWinner. The American Dissident is devoted
to hardcore critique of the literary machine and canon. Here's the letter sent
to AC. Enjoy it. I shall not be hanging around this puerile forum any more. If
you want to dialogue, send me an email:
todslone@yahoo.com. When you dialogue, please use logical argumentation and
present facts whenever possible. Thank you for your attention, Foets.
To Alan Cordel, Foetry
How disappointing your little entry RE "pretentious
prick." Is that all you could come up with? Why not mention that David and you
are cronies at Foesy? Why not seek the evidence instead of lowering yourself to
shooting the messenger? I linked you to my site a while ago. Now I'll have to
put a caveat next to the link. In fact, I tried to get in touch with you to
congratulate you, but you never responded. In any case, I will present the
evidence even though you are not interested in it. I shall copy D's letter and
match it with the part in my guidelines that specifically states NO CREDENTIALS!
I receive so many pompous letters just like D's listing senseless credentials
that tell me nothing about the poet, just that the poet is a poet of the
machine, nothing more nothing less. Well, I am not seeking to publish poets of
the machine, but rather poets against it.
Hopefully you will not censor this letter or the next
one with the evidence. Oh, we've come along way Foet, haven't we! You come off
like one of the corrupt assholes you've been hammering on your site. I shall
have to do a cartoon on you.
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
www.theamericandissident.org
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:44 pm
Post subject:
Ah, yet another brilliant poet in this Forum, Poet K, who doesn't even have the
nerve to use her real name. The only intelligence this one can muster is base
shooting the messenger. No logic, no reasonable argument that anything at all on
my site is a lie. Just call it pretentious and dipshit. Look in the mirror baby
if you want to see real dipshit. This Forum is zero in intellect.
Yes, let's make a donation to the Foets!
G. Tod Slone
David James Callahan--oh, you should consider yourself so fortunate to have
escaped publication here. This is why one should always, always read the
journals and publications to which one is considering submitting work.
Poet K.
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:38 pm
Post subject:
This is kind of sad, because Professor Slone could have been our friend. I did
go to his site and read the account of his protest of Franz Wright's reading at
the Concord Poetry Center. It was quite amusing.
Professor Slone,
I appreciate what you are doing. But here's the problem
as I see it.
Your net of protest is so wide that you catch up
everyone but yourself--and Ralph Waldo Emerson. This is why you--the most
truth-seeking individual in the universe--gives such offense. Your protest razes
everything to the ground. No one is left standing except you--and Ralph Waldo
Emerson.
A quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson on a placard is not a
protest, but a puzzle, for there is no greater establishment figure in the world
than Ralph Waldo Emerson. Taking a nap in one's home would be a greater protest
against the Machine than standing next to a placard with a Ralph Waldo Emerson
quote.
OK, David didn't read your guidelines. If you don't care
about his creds, don't read them. Why make a fuss about them? Read his poems!
Why didn't you read his poems and thank him for sending you his poems? Why did
you get all caught up in creds/not creds? Don't you see? You're becoming your
own worst enemy.
I don't think Alan should have called you a "prick." But
your response to a poet who sent you poems was prick-like.
Monday Love
_________________
Whisper and eye contact don't work here.
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:00 pm
Post subject: Edgy
Hello editor,
I see you have deciphered the registration process. I'm
sorry it was so difficult for you.
In my hands I hold the 2006 Writer's Market with
an entry for your periodical, The American Dissident. In a fairly
substantial write-up, you neglect to mention that you do not like to read
credentials -- in fact, credentials enmarge enrage you.
In addition to many details about what you think
your magazine promotes, you say, "guidelines online" -- on a geocities site no
less. I am a librarian at one of the largest community colleges in the country.
One thing that I understand about my students is that not all of them have
computers, nor easy access to a computer. You are creating a system of haves and
have-nots, while decrying those who've "sold out to the machine." Dude, you have
an aol address. If that's not selling out . . .
Perhaps if credentials trouble you so much, you should
indicate that in the Writer's Market entry and take out a line or two
about your fight against "celebrity, diversion, groupthink, herd mentality, and
conformity." OK. We get it. You're edgy.
I welcome your cartoon, but I'm sure you realize
that's already been done. You're an unoriginal tool and you don't even
realize it.
_________________
Alan Cordle
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:51 pm
Post subject: Hardcore evidence will always be ignored by the blind.
Here is the evidence: DJ’s letter and The AD guidelines. Why not think a second,
o Foetasters, and ask yourselves why The AD does not want pompous credentials
from contributing poets? The guidelines specify: “DO NOT SUBMIT CREDITS, but
rather a short biography of personal dissident information. What enabled you to
neutralize indoctrination? When did you stand apart from your friends or
colleagues and "go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways"
(Emerson)?” Here is DJ’s letter. Read it and ask yourself does this sound like
an obedient poet of the machine? It sure as hell did to me. Does it sound like a
poet who never challenged his professors, but rather kowtowed and bowed? It sure
did to me. Has Foetry researched Bowdoin’s poetry prize judges and their
relationships to prize recipients like DJ? Well, have you, AC?
After it are the entire guidelines. Thank you for your
attention, chers amis.
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident
January 28, 2004
The American Dissident
1837 Main St.
Concord, MA 01742
To the Editors:
Please consider the enclosed poems for publication in
The American Dissident. My work has appeared recently in two issues of Cimarron
Review, and has appeared in Tampa Review, Exquiste Corpse, The Birmingham Poetry
Review, Frisk, Figdust Review, Delmar, The Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, So
What, Three Speed, Quill and North. I am an Associate Member of the Academy of
American Poets. I am a magna cum laude graduate of Bowdoin College, where I was
awarded two Academy of Amercian Poets Prizes, two Bowdoin Poetry Prizes, and the
Forbes Rickart Jr. Poetry Prizze. I graduated in 1998 from Iowa Writers’
Workshop, where I was a 1996-1997 Maytag Fellow.
Sincerely, David James Callan
Poems (one-page max) and essays (650-word max) written
ON THE EDGE in English, Spanish, or French with a dash of personal RISK, and
stemming from EXPERIENCE, CONFLICT WITH POWER, and/or INVOLVEMENT. (The risk
factor is not obligatory for if it were, The American Dissident would publish
only one or several contributors at best.) Do not be afraid to Name NAMES!
Naming names is a definite form of quality control, truth telling, and free
speech and expression. Villon, Neruda, and Solzhenitsyn were not afraid to name
names. Bunnin and Beren (Writer’s Legal Companion) note that “A truth statement,
no matter how damaging, can’t be libelous.” Highly critical cartoons are also
needed. Include SASE. DO NOT SUBMIT CREDITS, but rather a short biography of
personal dissident information. What enabled you to neutralize indoctrination?
When did you stand apart from your friends or colleagues and "go upright and
vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways" (Emerson)?
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:34 pm
Post subject: Tod,
You should rename your "journal" "American Psycho." I know that name
is already taken, but you don't seem to mind being
unoriginal.
Poet K
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:29 am
Post subject:
Plus, you're not a true dissident until George Bush reads your e-mail...
_________________
Not...even...close, BUD!
Poetastin
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:29 pm
Post subject:
Well, another couple of sad poetaster entries. I often wonder how people like
them got to think as they do. Can our schoolteachers be that pitifully poor at
teaching critical thinking? What crappy lawyers they'd make. In fact, perhaps
the only thing they'd be good at is playing with poets and playing at being
poets.
To Alan Cordel,
Why the need for childish crap as in “I see you have
deciphered the registration process. I'm sorry it was so difficult for you.”?
Yeah, I had a difficult time with it because I rarely if ever engage in such
forums. If you’d mentioned on the registration that one has to wait until an
email is sent, I would have had no problems at all. Why the need for Big Brother
registration anyhow? In any case, in this entry, I address each and every point
you made in yours. Will you do the same?
Actually, I do not “enrage” at credentials, as you
state, though I have grown impatient with poets who shoot their shite all over
the goddamn place without even taking the time to read guidelines or examine the
nature of the journals to which they submit. American poets have become so
desperate for fame, accolade, and approval, which is why I quoted Emerson.
The American Dissident is simply trying to do something
different in the world of poesy. So many poets do nothing else but vaunt their
credentials and try to get published. It gets tedious to read letters like
Callan’s. Poets need to think about this whole credential thing, rather than
slobber over it, as Callan does. I thought, why not ask poets not for their
credentials but rather for what makes them dissident individuals, warriors
against the machine, against the dictated canon? Evidently, you are part of and
partial to that machine; otherwise, why would you denigrate my fight against
"celebrity, diversion, groupthink, herd mentality, and conformity"? Yes, you
state, “OK. We get it. You're edgy.” And what if I’d diminished myself by
writing to you with equal adolescent flair: “Ok. We get it. You’re not edgy.”?
You note: “I welcome your cartoon, but I'm sure you
realize that's already been done. You're an unoriginal tool and you don't even
realize it.” Why the constant need to denigrate me? That seems all you’re
capable of. Why not engage in the issues instead? The cartoon is included as an
attachment. Will you publish it in this Forum? The cartoon criticizes your
initial cowardice and anonymity, as well as your poet girlfriend’s. If it’s
already been done, please give me an example, so I might consult it. BTW, my
cartoon also criticizes those who you rightfully criticized. If I am such an
“unoriginal tool,” please provide an example of somebody else who is doing
precisely what The American Dissident is doing… just an example. Without
providing examples, your discourse becomes vacuous wind. You sound so much like
the “unoriginal” herd establishment poets and editors I come into contact with
frequently (you’ll notice they’re comments on my website). I was really
surprised by this because I thought your activity dissident in nature. BTW, I’ve
been criticizing the literary prizes perhaps before you (and Sinclair Lewis way
before both of us!), though I never did manage to get the pop publicity the NY
Times accorded you. I wonder: who do you know who knows someone at the Times?
I am not stating that all poetry must be this or that. I
am simply publishing a literary journal that seeks a certain type of poet and
poetry. That’s all.
I don’t know where you live but as far as I’ve observed,
students, poets, or whomever have relatively easy access to computers nowadays,
especially in the nation’s public libraries. Your community college certainly
must make computers available to students. But Callan isn’t even a student. So,
why the digression? I have been all over and that includes in tiny towns like
Eunice, Louisiana (the poorest state in the nation!), and have had no problem
accessing computers… available to the public. Moreover, I teach online
university courses and have taught them on the road throughout Maine, Quebec,
Europe, and Iceland… without my laptop and had no problems whatsoever locating a
computer. Yes, computers are damn easy to find nowadays. Your assertion is
wholly unfounded. You need to open your eyes in order to open those of students.
Tell them computers are available for free use in almost every public library in
the nation today. Librarian? Hmm. I’ve certainly come into contact with a number
of that all-to-willing ilk to dump the ALA Bill of Rights into the trash can.
Anyhow, I would have liked to have been a partner with
you against the corruption so rampant RE the lit prizes. I too fight that
corruption. BUT I take my battle further and also fight the boys like Callan who
lick the lit-prize hand whenever it decides to feed them morsels. Unfortunately,
it is more than evident that you are closed to serious dialogue.
Finally, your nonsense that I’ve sold out because I HAD
a geocities site is puerile and another example of vacuous discourse. In fact,
that’s an old address. Geocities threw me off its site on a whim because of one
single complaint lodged by a poet like Callan. Yes, that’s all it took! So,
perhaps, if anything, that adds to my status as non-sell out. The new site (and
I’ve been on that site for over a year now) is
www.theamericandissident.org. Poets Market did not make the change, for who
knows what reason. Hopefully, it will be indicated in the new edition, though it
was supposed to be indicated in the 2006 edition. There is not much I can do
about it. Again, I am open to serious dialogue, but not at all to adolescent
bullshit.
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:07 pm
Post subject:
Dear Editor,
You're funny. You made my Sunday.
Yours,
Alan Cordle (please note the spelling -- thanks)
_________________
Alan Cordle
Posted:
Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:36 am
Post subject: what's really missing here
As
I distract myself from deadlines by reading the latest here, it comes to me that
the unasked question is--
why credentials of any kind? The editor here is foaming
at the mouth because of academic-sounding credentials included in Callahan's
cover letter--but in fact seems to want credentials along the lines of "so, this
is how I stuck it to the man, and I suffered for it".
Which might explain the quality of the poems printed in
the American Dissident (or lack thereof).
Am I alone in wanting attention paid to the poems sent?
The poems. Not credentials, and not, please god, relationships. Poems.
crankily, mirsk
(and I love librarians. the forefront of the struggle
for free speech. Yay librarians.)
Mirsk
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:01 pm
Post subject: re: MORE FROM GEORGE
From : George Slone <todslone@yahoo.com>
Sent : Friday, March 3, 2006 4:12 PM
To : David James <davidjamescallan@hotmail.com>
Subject : On lawsuits et al
| | | Inbox
DJ,
Why would I wish to print those poems? What I would like
to do is throw them in the garbage. I'd hate to be responsible for recycling
them. Yes, I'm certain you must have very expensive lawyers, considering your
expensive credentials. So, I must make certain to be very fearful of you and
your Foet Fellows of Foetry. I cannot make similar threats to you because I do
not have a lawyer. In fact, I tend to despise lawyers as much as I do the
general bulk poet and academic herd. How odd that today's poets think they need
to have lawyers. How odd they think their work is of such grand importance,
especially that of American poets. As mentioned, I shall examine the comments
made in your Forum. It appears at first glance that you simply rounded up a
bunch of your Foet cronies to call me names, rather than to prove me wrong with
logic and evidence. But poets don't do that today, do they. Anyhow, thanks much
for the advertising. I'm aware that Foetry was in the NY Times, so that's great
for me. And again I stress how disappointed I am in AC's comments, which make
him seem like such an adolescent in mindset. In fact, the whole lot of you come
off that way: one Foetrythink and one Foetryspeak. Sort of reminds me of
Academe, where I am currently employed as Visiting Professor. Yes, I do have a
PhD from the Universite de Nantes (France). BUT, unlike you, normally I do not
vaunt credentials. I do not have the NEED to vaunt credentials. Perhaps when and
if you grow up, you too will not have the NEED to vaunt credentials, credits, et
al.
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone, Editor
www.theamericandissident.org
I'm not interested in what Mr. Slone says, but I
made a mistake about the poems I sent him. I did not submit a poem about a
lynching, although I had originally intended to do that. I submitted a poem
about cruising adult bookstores and one about a schizophrenic who murdered his
mother with a hammer. I will continue to post Mr. Slone's e-mails to me, even
though they should have ended with: Please return my work in the enclosed SASE.
I have no interest in someone trying to browbeat me
or reduce me to a cliche without knowing one little bit about me. Just for the
record, if anyone has "stuck it to the man" it's me. I read my cover letter
here, and damned if it is exactly what a cover letter should be.
MR. SLONE: STOP E-MAILING ME. I CANNOT AFFORD LAWYERS
AND I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO BLOCK E-MAILS ON THIS VERSION OF HOTMAIL. YOUR E-MAILS
ARE UNWELCOME.
PLEASE RETURN MY POEMS IN THE ENCLOSED SASE.
YOUR OPINIONS OF ANYTHING DO NOT MATTER TO ME. YOU ARE
STEALING MY PAPER, POSTAGE AND MY ENVELOPE. RETURN THEM TO ME.
I see references in your letters to you being a
professor? So why should I care about some professor making five times what I
ever have telling me I am not oppressed enough? I wish you well, but you mean
less to me than the postage on my SASE.
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:55 pm
Post subject: re: THE OPPRESSED COLLEGE PROFESSOR
A
strange breed.
DJ
Callan
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:21 pm
Post subject: Re: what's really missing here
I
agree it's a good question Mirsk, and one needn't be a nut like Slone ("The
Earth is round, I tell you!") to ask it. Academic and publishing creds
should just be ignored.
Ed
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:00 pm
Post subject: re: Fine With Me
It
would be fine with me if those things were ignored, but for the most part, I
don't think that they are.
Actually, they haven't helped me that much, either.
They're pretty much a formality. But a writer should not ever be ashamed of
writing or publishing something, if it hasn't involved FRAUD, that is, which is
the reason I got involved with this website in the first place.
I've posted the stuff on this particular "thread"
because I felt--correctly, I think--that Mr. Slone was a bully. But I don't
tolerate bullies, and the best way to deal with them is to expose their
behaviour or let them expose themselves and their bullying to other people.
Oh, poor David has no thoughts of his own, and I am
going to reduce him to a little pile of quivering frog droppings. Because no one
will ever see this but him.
Sorry, Charlie.
I have a feeling that cover letters help sometimes to
break through a voluminous box of submissions--remember, we're not talking about
a fraudulent contest where people are wasting their money--but I think they also
piss people off, especially grad-student readers and professors who don't WRITE
POEMS, etc.
The few things I've published in the past eight years
were all accepted by complete strangers, and I didn't have most of those
publications on my cover letters when they
were accepted.
In my case, I went to Iowa, which pisses off
everyone who didn't go to Iowa. Hell, at this point it's pissing ME off that I
went to Iowa.
But cover letters don't say much about who I am or what
I think. In the olden days, I would have been what was known as a "scholarship"
student at college. I've never been on an airplane or driven a car, I'm pretty
sure I am not "part of the machine" or "the herd." I certainly have picked up
some stuff in schools, but most of what I've read or written has been outside of
it. I've gone to school rather than have some of the luxuries most people have.
But even when I have been working three jobs and going to school, I've written,
what I want, how I want, and didn't spend much time at all complaining about
other people.
Has anyone out there been so transformed by their school
experiences that their brains are exactly alike every single person that went to
the same school?
Of course not, and yet I hear that sort of thing about
The Writers' Workshop all the time. And it is RIDICULOUS. Almost ridiculous,
because there is a bit of cult mentality to programs like that, especially with
some professors.
But any professor who would bully and browbeat
someone--as Mr. Slone does--is a dangerous cat to play with. I won't call him
any more names, but I wouldn't let a six-year old talk to me as Mr. Slone does.
BULLYING AND FLATTERY ARE THE TWO WAYS ABUSIVE PEOPLE
TEND TO SNAG THEIR NEXT VICTIMS.
*****************
Funny thing is, Mr. Slone reminds me a lot of
myself. When I was twenty and drinking a case of beer every day. Let's take it
to the streets, George!
Aww, he's just a big old pussy-
cat.
Meow muh-meow-mmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooowwwwwwww.
I am not sure how that would translate into French.
_________________
TALKING ABOUT COMEDY IS LIKE DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE:
STEVE MARTIN
I can be reached at:
16 Eldridge St. Apt. 14H
Manchester, CT 06040
(860) 647-6911
davidjamescallan@hotmail.com
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:29 pm
Post subject: Inside Outside
It's kind of a shame that this all started out as something of a flame war,
because there are some worthwhile issues here.
Mirsk, I agree with you that credentials of any kind
should be eliminated from poetry submissions. The idea of "dissident
credentials" is sort of preposterous, in any case. It can be easy to forget that
the poetry world today has a huge number of "outsiders" . . . who basically
write the paychecks for the comparatively tiny body of "insiders".
The last thing a real dissident can do (and remain a
valid dissident) is form a counter-elite, a special class of members. There's no
difference between this and a cult. I imagine this is how the "post-avant"/LangPod
community began: with an elitist ideology. But that group utilized their
academic connections to transform a small cult into (as we have recently heard
Poetry Snark call it) a “mafia” that controls the entire territory of
"legitimate" experimental poetry.
As far as I'm concerned, there's a lesson to be learned
here for anyone who considers or wants to consider herself/himself an "outsider
poet". Elitism is a more dangerous opponent than "the machine". There is no
"machine" that is "out there" only in some other. We all have the machine in us,
the PoBiz is in our blood and bones . . . and the best battle we can fight is
with that inner PoBiz (which is what we are each individually responsible for).
How many of us, for instance, if "privileged" by fame and impressive-sounding
publications would still fight against PoBiz, against elitism, or for dissent?
I’m not saying there is no “good fight” out there. I
just think we need to keep looking toward the beams in our own eyes. The fight
“out there” with “the machine” is an easy one to wage (if not so easy to win).
But most of the time, the real reason we fight is buried inside our own personal
conflicts (and has nothing to do with ethics). It’s easier to defeat an enemy
(no matter how large) than it is to be unequivocally just.
It's easy to lose sight of this when we're on the outs,
but I don't think ethics can be relative . . . and still be ethical. This is
likely just the introvert in me talking (Ed, correct me if this is the case),
but in many cases, I think a concerted devotion to justice is as great a dissent
as we can muster. (I don’t mean to apply this line of thinking to situations
where real, overt, physical/political oppression is operating. That’s a
different matter entirely.)
I don't think anyone has babbled about poetic dissent
here as much as I have, and so most of you know that I think the idea of
dissident poetry (whatever that might be . . . that's another argument) is a
good one. But maybe it's time to try to suss out what would constitute such
dissent.
I'm not saying that some kind of agreement should be
reached (I doubt that would be possible or helpful) . . . but just talking about
it out in the open is a democratic step.
That said, George, I do think your approach to David was
overly caustic . . . unnecessarily caustic. Even if he neglected to read your
outlines. But I agree with your general principle that the removal of cover
letter credentials from poetry submissions is long, long overdue (including any
alternative, “dissident” crendtials). I don't submit to poetry journals anymore,
but when I did, I never included a list of credentials. I found it morally
objectionable to do this . . . but I don't deserve any ethics awards, because,
to be fair, I had no impressive credentials to offer. Still, I think editors
should be ashamed of themselves if they can’t evaluate a poem on its own merits
(with the author’s name and credentials off the table). Any interest in cover
letters for standard poetry journal submissions is crap from which no possible
good can come.
I’d only like to point out one more thing. Although I
sympathize with the desire shown here to stick up for David as “one of us” and
agree that George’s approach warrants criticism, I also think we should be very
careful about the “one of us” attitude. I don’t advocate the retaliatory ad
hominem barbs directed at George. When we start doing this to those who are
outsiders to our own group, we become just as ethically impaired as the people
we criticize as “foets”. George has presented us with issues worthy of
intelligent consideration and reply . . . even if his tone was hostile.
Just think back a little bit to our old comrade,
Crimson. She was much more contrary, angry, and vicious to many on this forum
than George has been . . . but she was “one of us”, so most of us granted her
opinions some credibility, and we replied to her seriously.
We should be more conscious of the way we snap back at
outsiders.
-Matt
_________________
"A pianist dreams that he’s hired by a wrecking company
to ruin a piano with his fingers . . ."
-Russell Edson
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:09 pm
Post subject: I AGREE WITH MATT ABOUT A FEW THINGS...
This whole thing started, at least for me, as a way of being less isolated
against what I found to be a puzzling and unwarranted hostility from Mr. Slone.
It was my battle, though; I chose to make it public
because I thought that there were issues involved that might help other people.
It was only three months ago when I was the outsider
being attacked, and I hadn't written anything hostile.
I personally don't want to discuss anything with Mr.
Slone, because he has been nothing but presumptious, wildly off base and hostile
towards me. I certainly don'y need to listen to that from a stranger. However, I
hope he finds an ear with the rest of you.
I do wonder, however, why people who don't send work to
magazines feel such a need to dictate what people who DO submit work to journals
should do.
If you have published work, why NOT mention it in cover
letters?
That is what building up a reputation is, building.
I don't think less of HERZOG knowing what Bellow
wrote before it, and I am still able to think whatever I think about that book
without being that concerned with what came before. So, whatever writer you
think is dissident, well, they all began somewhere, and Beckett, Joyce, Camus,
Andrea Dworkin, whoever, well, what do you wanna bet that they all wrote cover
letters? It ISN'T that interesting of a subject.
I find it puzzling that so many people who are not
involved with trying to publish are so wrapped up in deciding how those who take
the time, effort, and BALLS to write find an audience. Ethics is one
thing; complete docility to a hostile "gang" is another.
So, don't waste your dough on those nasty contests.
Why anyone would freak out at me for publishing six or
seven poems in eight years is really none of my concern. I've worked hard for
everything I've got, and it ain't much.
I'm starting to feel like I should have kept my mouth
shut, played dumb, and gone along with the "foets." At least they write poems.
Bring on the machine, whatever it is, I'd love to eat out once in a while. There
seems to be more and more hot air and childish hostility to be had here, and I
dopn't want to fall prey to it more than I already have.
Take it easy.
_________________
TALKING ABOUT COMEDY IS LIKE DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE:
STEVE MARTIN
I can be reached at:
16 Eldridge St. Apt. 14H
Manchester, CT 06040
(860) 647-6911
davidjamescallan@hotmail.com
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:54 pm
Post subject: My take on it all
I
jumped to David's defense perhaps because I feel I "know" him, though we've
never met in person. We have talked on the phone and email/pm often. I like him
and his poetry very much.
The American Dissident editor should use Poet's Market
and Writer's Market to make his repulsion to credentials known; it's unfair of
him to get something like 200 words towards his submissions policy and to have
two of them read, "guidelines online." Didn't he already say enough?
David had already read the guidelines and they did not
mention "no credentials." That's why I chose to defend David.
Besides, when I looked at the AD website, and the entry
in Writer's Market, I learned that the print circulation of AD is 200. I think
David should be relieved by Tod's outburst; it saved David's work for a much
better journal, where it belongs and where it will find readers.
I do apologize for the word "prick," but think
pretentious is right-on. No wonder many French people dislike Americans.
All that said, I do think poems should be read without
credentials, but I am not opposed to them either.
_________________
Alan Cordle
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006
9:53 pm
Post subject: alternative publication
David James Callan wrote:I
do wonder, however, why people who don't send work to magazines feel such a need
to dictate what people who DO submit work to journals should do.
If you have published work, why NOT mention it in cover letters?
That is what building up a reputation is, building.
Dave,
I don't fault you for feeling this way, but I have
decided (for me personally) that I would like to avoid the current publication
system. Of course, if you want to be a successful poet, there's probably no way
around it. Still, I feel disinclined to seek that success these days.
I used to send my work to journals and play by the
rules, but it always made me feel conflicted, and I eventually decided that I
was quitting cold turkey. Currently, I believe it would be best for both many
outsider poets and for capital P Poetry itself if poets (especially unaffiliated
poets) would dedicatedly seek out alternative forms of publication. Even when
that means self-publication.
I fought with this for a long time . . . and I believe
my opinion on the matter is as valid as anyone's. From my perspective, the whole
poetry publication system looks corrupt and ineffectual. After reading journals
(mainstream and "anti-mainstream") for years (with intense disappointment . . .
even outright shock at the crap often published), I've given up the hope that
they are really serving Poetry as an art form.
The way I see it now, poets would do well to rebel and
no longer play ball with the PoBiz. I don't respect the insiders enough to grant
them the power and right to credential me. Their credentialing means nothing . .
. is really more of a cattle brand than an acknowledgment of merit, as far as
I’m concerned.
I've written on this extensively here in the forums . .
. but probably before you joined. I think some of this soapboxing was done in a
thread on self-publishing many moons ago.
I don't go as far as to say that poets who continue to
seek mainstream publication, credentialing, and indoctrination are "bad". But I
do feel that it is an unnecessary process of self-sacrifice and self-mutilation
. . . and I even fear that too much commitment to it can prove corrupting (and
damaging to the poetry produced). It's the poets that lose in this process
(especially the outsider poets) . . . and thereby, the poetry itself suffers.
In my opinion, poetry would be healthier today if poets
of talent bucked the system and stuck to the web or self-publication. I do think
poets should be more barbarous and less willing to embrace indoctrination.
But, more importantly, I believe all voices should be
heard on this matter. People who object to mainstream publication should not be
excommunicated.
-Matt
PS: I don't see people who advocate dissent against the
poetry publication system as cowardly at all. In my personal experience, I
really had to buck up and accept the losses before I could truly embrace my
decision to leave the PoBiz.
I think it's much harder to choose integrity over
capitulation . . . and for me personally, the choice was a matter of integrity.
_________________
"A pianist dreams that he’s hired by a wrecking company
to ruin a piano with his fingers . . ."
-Russell Edson
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:14 pm
Post subject: Re: My take on it all
alan
wrote: I jumped
to David's defense perhaps because I feel I "know" him, though we've never met
in person. We have talked on the phone and email/pm often. I like him and his
poetry very much.
Alan, I don't mean to scold you or anyone else, and I
apologize for my tone. I think everyone's reactions to George's hostility are
completely understandable. I have always stuck up for fellow members when I felt
they were being abused by elitist and haughty newcomers (especially when those
newcomers did nothing but spew the PoBiz party dogma).
I don't know anything about the American Dissident guy .
. . other than that his attack/response to David was mean-spirited and
unnecessary. Maybe George personally doesn't deserve any respect after the way
he lashed out. I don't mean to advocate for him personally. If he feels a need
to justify himself, the ball is in his court.
My only concern is that I look at George as a potential
type, a type who could have a useful voice in our forums. Maybe George himself
has too many issues that would prevent this possibility, but the TYPE shouldn't
be disdained.
So, his website doesn't look like a professional
designer made it (neither does mine). So, his circulation is only 200. I worry
that leaping at points like these as if they are somehow bad or contrary to the
grassroots, underdog spirit of Foetry.com that I have come to respect and admire
is ultimately wrongheaded.
We need dissident "little guys" to fight the good fight.
Now, what George did that was bad was stage a
personal attack on David for reasons that (to my mind) seem to boil down to a
selfish kind of elitism and blind, misguided righteousness. If these qualities
derail his American Dissident project, I think that would be a shame. But that
personality issue is separate from the political/artistic issues.
So, all I'm saying is, go ahead and criticize the
personality, but let's not lose ourselves and start bashing a "little guy" for
being little. We are all little guys/gals here. The last thing we want to do is
to start “aping our betters”.
Yours,
Matt
_________________
"A pianist dreams that he’s hired by a wrecking company
to ruin a piano with his fingers . . ."
-Russell Edson
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:18 am
Post subject: credentials
(this is harking back to Callahan's query as to why he shouldn't list his
credentials)
In asking why credentials at all (of any sort) I didn't
mean to criticize your cover letter.
It's fine to be proud of where you've published, where
you've studied, what prizes you may have won, and so on.
My point is that all that really shouldn't matter to (my
personal) the ideal editor.
When I read a poem, I do not care if it is by someone
with a list of previous publications, or who has just won the Nobel prize, or
whatever.
I want to read the poem, and to react to the poem. I
hope that is what I do, even when I happen to know that the poet is one I have
previously admired, or who is the current wild fave of the masses.
This is why, in my more snappish moments (of which there
are many) I tend to say "I like poems, not poets" (this is a lie--I do have
favorite poets--but, ultimately, I do like the poems best, and I am glad to see
poems by poets I didn't think I liked, and often encounter poems by poets I
cherish that--alas--fall flat.)
I want it to be about the poetry. Not about the prizes,
not about the schools, not about the previous publications. Certainly not about
whom the poet has slept with, married, or hired as a babysitter.
Merely about the poems.
But then, I live far, far away from the teeming hordes &
academic halls.
thank heavens. (and, as I told you in my PM in response
to your poems, David, yes, your poems are far better than what's in AD, and
should find a place somewhere).(even without a cover letter, dare I say)
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:25 am
Post subject: credentials
A
lot of these posts seem to take it for granted that poets include credentials in
their cover letters because they're hoping to impress editors with the cover
letter. I can tell you that I include a short biographical note, sometimes with
publishing credentials, for another reason -- simply so that if the journal does
publish some of my work, readers can be directed to more of my recent work. I
think this is the way a lot of poets approach it. I've read tons of cover
letters that read something like the following: "Bio. (if necessary) -- I
currently live in ______ and teach at _______. Poems of mine are included in the
latest issues of _______, _________, and ___________." If the journal publishes
the poems, the bio. will direct interested readers to more work by the poet. As
a reader of poetry journals, I have found these contributor notes helpful many
times
As far as George at The American Psycho goes, it is
incredibly unprofessional for him to broadcast David's cover letter and to reply
to David's submission with a hostile email. It is also petty and juvenile for
him to make all these broad, paranoid assumptions about David based on the cover
letter. He comes off as wildly insecure. Only people without any accomplishments
of their own are bothered by the legitimate accomplishments of others. I take
David at his word that he's published poems in journals whose editors didn't
know him, and I'm happy for him and impressed that he was able to get into and
graduate from such an elite graduate school. Regardless of what we know about
Jorie Graham's ethics as a judge, it's still an accomplishment to get admitted
into Iowa's MFA program and graduate from it. It's a much bigger accomplishment
than getting into George's screed-rag, that's for sure.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:47 pm
Post subject:
Dear George,
Or should I call you Professor Slone?
Why don't we start over?
Your mission to throw a monkey wrench into the "Machine"
may be admirable, but I think we need to stop and analyze the whole notion of
the "Machine."
Ralph Waldo Emerson married a woman who was dying so he
could inherit her money.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was being wined and dined in London
while his (second) sick wife was back home raising sick kids.
Ralph Waldo Emerson jumped on the abolitionist bandwagon
only after he thought it would help his career.
Ralph Waldo Emerson's prose is often pre-Nietzschean,
war-like and fascist.
Anyway, the point is, you cannot just take some quotes
from Bartlett's and start a "revolution" and demand that others fight the
"Machine."
Should we all live on Brook Farm? Is that how we should
fight the "Machine?"
Or should the professor fight the dean, the dean fight
the college president, the student fight the professor, the non-student fight
the student, the non-student fight his mom? Where does it end? And how can the
professor fight the dean if his students are fighting him? Or should students
and professor join together and fight the dean? Or, should the dean and the
professors and the students fight the college president? Or, should the
students, professors, deans, and college presidents fight the mayor?
Here you are fighting Foetry.com, and why? Because a
poet sent you his credentials?
Do you see the problem here?
When you described your "protest" at the Concord Poetry
Center reading with Franz Wright, I noticed that the reaction to you by almost
everyone was " chuckling."
Well, of course they were "chuckling." This is the
proper reaction. You draw cartoons, like Jim Behrle.
I say, don't go for the chuckle. Go for the laugh.
Or, explain this "Machine" better.
Sincerely,
Monday
_________________
Whisper and eye contact don't work here.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:59 pm
Post subject: Re: credentials
Poet
K wrote:A lot of
these posts seem to take it for granted that poets include credentials in their
cover letters because they're hoping to impress editors with the cover letter. I
can tell you that I include a short biographical note, sometimes with publishing
credentials, for another reason -- simply so that if the journal does publish
some of my work, readers can be directed to more of my recent work. I think this
is the way a lot of poets approach it. I've read tons of cover letters that read
something like the following: "Bio. (if necessary) -- I currently live in ______
and teach at _______. Poems of mine are included in the latest issues of
_______, _________, and ___________." If the journal publishes the poems, the
bio. will direct interested readers to more work by the poet. As a reader of
poetry journals, I have found these contributor notes helpful many times
K, my experience in this is pretty limited, but isn't it
more conventional for a publisher to ask for a contributor note after the poem
is accepted for publication?
Having such information up front in a cover letter along
with the poem seems more like a nudgenudge-winkwink, "publish me because I can
bring your journal name recognition" or "publish me because other credential
givers have given me the nod". This seems to be entirely separate from the
merits of the poem. I can't see any good reason for a cover letter ever swaying
the decision of an editor.
It's nice to have credentials of note, but sticking them
on top of the poems seems like a bribe to me. Why not slip the editor a twenty
or something? I see no real difference.
I don’t mean to fault anyone who writes cover letters.
It’s a common practice . . . many editors say they prefer to have them.
Following the rules is the poet’s best bet at getting accepted. Still, I can’t
see how such a practice could really be justified in a meritocratic process.
Of course, as we all know, the PoBiz is not a
meritocracy.
-Matt
_________________
"A pianist dreams that he’s hired by a wrecking company
to ruin a piano with his fingers . . ."
-Russell Edson
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:36 pm
Post subject: Matt,
No, it's standard to include the bio. in the initial cover letter. Then the
editor can use it if he/she includes any poems from the submission. Many editors
say they don't read the cover letter until after they have made a decison on the
poem. As an editor, I find that, if anything, a good list of pubs prejudices me
against the poet. It's like when I read a book or go to a movie that has been
hyped up by my friends; I'm usually disappointed because my expectations had
been built so high. Also, if the poems are bad but the poet has published in
reputable journals, I'm more likely to reject them and hope that the poet sends
his/her 'A' material the next time.
Last edited by Poet K on Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:05 pm;
edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006
7:13 pm
Post subject: Cover letter usage
Poet K wrote:No,
it's standard to include the bio. in the initial cover letter. Then the editor
can use it if he/she includes any poems from the submission. Many editors say
they don't read the cover letter until after they have made a decison on the
poem. As an editor, I find that, if anything, a good list of pubs prejudices me
against the poet. It's like when I read a book or going to a movie that has been
hyped up by my friends; I'm usually disappointed because my expectations had
been built so high. Also, if the poems are bad but the poet has published in
reputable journals, I'm more likely to reject them and hope that the poet sends
his/her 'A' material the next time.
That's good to know. I guess I have a paranoid streak
that makes me suspect that many editors ARE being prejudiced . . . in favor of
poets with impressive creds. I remember talking with Ed Ochester (Pitt Press)
about this in a class when I was an undergrad. He (and a few other po-profs I
spoke with) seemed to think that publishers most definitely look at the prior
publications before they make their choice whether or not to accept a
submission. Ochester even said (quite specifically) that contest submissions
claiming to be anonymous are not actually anonymous. He said it was no use
submitting to manuscript contests until one has an impressive list of journal
pubs . . . because no one without about a dozen or more journal publications
would make it past the first round of screening.
Maybe he was bullshitting us youngins in order to
dissuade us from trying to publish, but he seemed like he was giving his real
opinion. On the other hand, he also said he felt cover letters were a bad idea.
So, I guess it depends largely on the editor.
I guess, in general, I would be disinclined to trust an
editor who promises fair evaluation, but upholds policies that make it very easy
for bias and “bribery” to affect acceptance decisions. I’m sure there are many
honest and ethical editors out there, but the most decent thing to do (in my
opinion) would be to have basic policies that prevent or deter (as much as
possible) favoritism and cronyism, and strive for a purely meritocratic
evaluation of the submitted work.
So, if I was an editor, I think I would just say “No
cover letters” in my guidelines and ask for a contributor’s note from those
poets whose work is accepted for publication. I agree that a contributor’s note
can be helpful. Of course, doing away with cover letters would have no impact on
name recognition . . . and in my experience, most people in the biz know a lot
of other poet’s names and publication histories. But again, that would make
cover letters redundant, although for other reasons.
-Matt
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:31 pm
Post subject: cover letters
Most of the places to which I submit my work, and most of the places that have
published my poetry, don't require (and often say they do not want) cover
letters. My experience has been that info for a contributor's note is requested
at the time of acceptance.
Of course, I'm odd. During the ancient times of my first
publications I refused to give any info whatsoever, contending it didn't really
matter much.
And there's a question that interests me (to which,
sleep deprived as I am this morning I don't know the answer yet): what
information would really be exciting and interesting to know in the contributor
notes? For me it's not where the poet last published, or what the last prize
was. That much I know.
What would interest me? Something untamed, maybe.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:42 pm
Post subject: The Untamed
Mirsk, I guess we are similarly odd, then, as I've had
the same experience.
I don't know if there is an answer to this. I guess
it could be said that the poem itself should tell something "untamed" about the
poet. Certainly, good poetry does this splendidly (as long as we aren't
confusing rabid, narcissistic confessionalism with the "untamed"). Maybe the
unsatisfied desire for such a thing simply indicates that there aren't enough
good poems being published.
Regrettably, more often than not, after reading a poem,
the last thing I want to know is more about the poet. Rather, I would like a law
to be passed that prevents them from ever moving into my neighborhood.
Also, there aren’t many “untamed” poets left these days.
They’re definitely an endangered species. Not including, of course, the many
god-awful poets who remain too “uncouth” for mainstream publication. But, in my
experience of them, these amateurs tend to be even more beholden to dogmas than
the indoctrinated poets . . . they just happen to hold to dogmas that are no
longer in vogue. It’s too bad, because being one of the unwashed masses really
opens up a great opportunity to be nonconformist (without being directly
punished for heresy).
But the “outside” for poetry isn’t really modeled on the
old west of frontier America (with its outlaws and eccentrics of lore). It’s
much more like an ancient Greek land of the dead where shades crowd together
desperately, entirely forlorn, but keen for the smell of blood. Sad that.
I’d much prefer a poetry frontier filled with poets too
wild for the mainstream rather than too defeated.
-Matt
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:03 pm
Post subject: Anon
Does everyone remember ANON, the Scottish poetry journal, mentioned in early
Foetry days?
http://www.blanko.org.uk/anon/
From their description:
Anon is a
print-based poetry magazine to which poems are submitted anonymously and
assessed 'blind', using procedures similar to those used by poetry competitions.
Poems that are accepted for publication are published under the names of their
authors – that is to say, the anonymous process only applies to the assessment
procedures, not to publication. Poems that are rejected remain ‘anonymous’ – the
editorial team does not discover the names of poets they reject.
Anon provides a level playing field. It has quickly established a presence in
the poetry magazine scene. It is published on a relaxed timescale, aiming at
every six months but often taking nine.
Alan Cordle
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:47 pm
Post subject:
I've never sent a cover letter with my poems and I have a pretty good batting
average.
The poets I loved growing up, like Keats and Shelley,
did not have prizes and creds. They were just poets. In fact, I remember that
Wordsworth was quite uncool compared to Keats and Shelley, because he was Poet
Laureate.
The whole 'professionalization' of poetry where all of a
sudden creds and prizes became everything, not to mention the flourishing of all
these academic and ethnic nooks and cliques overwhelmed the 'Great Poetry' myth
(let's call it a myth even though this myth still feels more real somehow) and
it was apparent in poetry readings I attended in my college years, those
flattering introductions, poets reading in that 'modern poet affect' voice, and
increasingly poets got laughs, like it was stand-up comedy almost, this wasn't
the poetry which I had fallen in love with as a boy.
Poetry became human all too human. Documents and charts
became attached to it. Poetry became gentrified by a Modern Giant, and, instead
of resisting the Giant, it sank into its arms. Look! the World is sucky and
prosey! Therefore--my poetry is sucky and prosey! Makes sense? Right? Right?
(nervous laughter)
Whisper and eye contact don't work here.
Monday Love
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:58 pm
Post subject: re: Scylla and Carybdis
I
tell ya, folks.
As Ricky Nelson once said: "You can't please everyone,
so you haveta please yourself."
I don't think cover letters are a "bribe." To me, if I
was running a zine, which I would if I could afford to, I'd want cover letters,
because I find a little personal information about an author grounding. I like
introductions, afterwords, the little list that says "By the Same Author" and
liner notes on records and CDs.
From what I've seen of people who run zines, they'll
talk up and down about revolution, but would print twenty pages of John Ashbery
if he smeared parrot sputum onto wax paper and signed his name to it.
Everyone I have ever asked about cover letters says to
send them. A lot of zines (I look up and read the whole thing about magazines in
Poets' Market, write down the ones that appeal to me, and send from that
list--I'm gonna try new zines next year, though) tell you to submit a list of
publications, others don't mention it.
DJ Callan
Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:16 pm
Post subject:
Anyone ever notice that people with M.A.'s tend to be stronger more original
writers than people with M.F.A.'s. Anne Carson, Ashbery... And real M.A.'s and
PhD's, not ones in "creative writing" which is not a academic discipline at all
in as much as Journalism is an academic discipline.
This strange notion that poets are a class that is
different from novelists, and that poetry is a gentleman's art more than
novelists. Really just an effect of poetry having to exist in Academia whereas
Novelists can still live in the world through commercial means. Novelists if
they succeed in the world can overthrow the "Literature" gate so heavily guarded
by the Academics.
Poets have a much harder time, Bukowski did it, maybe
not in America, but in Europe where they are not burdened with the M.F.A.
system.
There are not enough Kaitlyns in M.F.A. programs.
Member of the ULA
