Literary News « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Literary News’ Category

Entry 902 — the “Pleruser”

Thursday, October 25th, 2012

Do I have a good word, finally, after forty years, for “one who does more than read a poem” in “pleruser?”  I like it now, but I’ve liked probably thirty or more previous of my attempts to get a better word than my “aesthcipient” for engage a work of art fully, in general, and for not just reading but viewing a visual poem, in particular.  pluhr ROO zuhr.  From “peruser” and “PLuRal.”  Sibling: “plerusal.”

Another new coinage, but probably just an ad hoc term is “poelectricrity,” which is what a poem has to have to be major.  It comes from my latest idea about a poem that it has three contents, one of them its elecrical content.  More on that when (and if) I get the essay I’m writing about it–one paragraph done so far–finished.

I’m learning of interesting behind-the-scenes quiet differences of opinion about the Fantagraphic anthology, by the way.  Two friends having mixed views of it, or worse; an unnamed acquaintance of one of them sounding as if he thinks very little of it.   I consider it excellent–which doesn’t mean there aren’t specimens in it I’m not too fond of, although I’ve seen nothing in it that I think doesn’t deserve to be in it.   I’m not sure which would be better for the field–a no-holds-barred between those for it and those against it, or a solidity of all involved in the field it covers against the Establishment, it the latter comes out in opposition to it, as I hope it will.  Probably the best thing for now is to await further developments in the BigWorld.

.

Entry 788 — Poets & Writers Questionnaire

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

Here it is:

1. Yes, I am interested in participating in either a phone interview (30 minutes) or focus group (90 minutes) or both
2. Please tell us what you write. Poetry, Fiction
3. Do you write genre fiction? Yes
4. If you write genre fiction, please indicate which type.  Science Fiction
5. Are you a translator? No
6. Do you write books for children?
7. Do you write books for young adults? Not yet
8. Have you published a book? Yes
9. If you’ve published one or more books, how were they published?
Both Published by a publisher and Self-published
10. Would you be willing to participate in a focus group in Manhattan? Could not afford to
11. Would you be willing to participate in a focus group in downtown Los Angeles.? Could not afford to
12. Do you use Google+ Hangouts? No (Don’t know what these are.)
13. Would you be willing to participate in a virtual focus group using Google+ Hangouts? Don’t know what it is.
14. On weekdays, what time of day would be best for you to participate in a focus group? Any time
15. Do you subscribe to Poets & Writers Magazine? No
16. Do you subscribe to our e-newsletter? No
17. Have you received payment from Poets & Writers for a reading you’ve given or a workshop you’ve conducted? That’s a laugh.
18. Are you listed in our Directory of Poets & Writers? Yes
19. Do you participate in our online Speakeasy? No
20. Your age? Over 65
21. Your ethnic background? White, not Hispanic
22. Your gender? Male
23. Please provide your name, email address and information on where you live. Provided

I find nothing in it to indicate Poets & Writers has a genuine interest in finding out what it can do to help poets and writers. They should, at the very least, have someone answering their questionnaire tell how he rates their magazine from 1 for I think it very bad to 5 for I think it very good, to be sure of getting a few people who could actually help them do what they say they want to do. They should ask for comments, too. Such as a yes/no question about whether the answerer has ever published any kind of opinion piece on the state of literature in America, with a follow-up determining how often he has, if he has. More specific question on the kind of poetry done would help–a list of the Wilshberian poetries and “other.”  If I had time, I’m sure I could think of other good questions.  The results of P&W’s effort to improve should be amusing.

.

Entry 524 — The Latest Nobel Laureate

Friday, October 7th, 2011

 
Yesterday I made a sarcastic remark at New-Poetry about the blurb at the Nobel site for the latest mediocrity getting money from Stockholm in the literature department.  John Jeffrey replied, “Bob, if you go to the Noble Prize for Lit web site, there’s a list of all the laureates.  For the recent winners, those little blurbs (such as Tranströmer’s ‘condensed, translucent images’ you commented on) have been so overblown that they crack me up.  Here are some for various winners.  (See if you can guess who based on the blurb.)

 
“‘…for his cartography of structures of power and his trenchant images of the individual’s resistance, revolt, and defeat’.
 
“‘…author of new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization’.
 
“‘…that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny’.
 
“‘…for having united perceptive narrative and incorruptible scrutiny in works that compel us to see the presence of suppressed histories’.
 
“But it seems these incomprehensible burbs are a recent phenomenon.  It wasn’t always this way.  Back in ’23, they wrote that Yeats was awarded the prize,“for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation.”  That’s probably too clearly phrased for today’s fancy-pants Nobel writers.”
  
Said I: “I’m a sucker for ‘cartography,’ John, so I love the blurb with that in it.  As for the Yeats blurb, well, my problem with it is the same as my real problem with all the blurbs: they treat poetry as a sociopolitical instrument; what it does for ‘the spirit of a whole nation’ is what counts, not what it does as works of art—not for a whole nation but only for its best few (although I believe in the trickle-down effect that will allow lesser talents to use the innovations of geniuses to make art most of the rest of a nation will enjoy—the Bob Dylans, for instance).  The over-blown gush the Nobel people use for their blurbs is just their way of saying they haven’t the slightest idea for what poetry is at its best—though a few times I accept that they’ve rewarded it at its best, as with Yeats.  Maybe with Tranströmer, too, who knows.  I don’t and won’t have time to, but my intuition is that, at best, he’s another Yeats—which is to say, as Brahms was to Beethoven—when Wagner had become the next Beethoven.  Not that I’d shoot someone for preferring Brahms’s music to Wagner’s, but I would shoot someone for claiming Brahms was anywhere near as important a composer as Wagner, and importance ought to be of . . . importance.”
 
I mentioned Dylan because some people are advancing him as an appropriate Nobel Laureate.  If writers like Sinclair Lewis and Pearl Buck were, then I guess he is. 
 
.

Entry 476 — Bad News

Monday, August 1st, 2011

Just last night I heard of Len Fulton’s death from Karl Kempton.  A huge loss to me personally, and to the larger world.  What small visibility I have as a critic is due almost entirely to him.  What small visibility our country’s best writers have is due in large part to him, too–due to his support of the small press and micro-press for so long.  (His American Odyssey, a Bookselling Travelogue, which is about his beginnings in his vocation, is still entertainingly and informativelyl worth reading.)

I never met him personally–or even talked to him on the phone.  But we exchanged a lot of notes over the twenty years or so that I knew him.  He was always upbeat and supportive.  In his last note to me (this June), he wished me luck with my hip, which I’d just written him I was going to have replaced.

I was amused to hear that he’d been a life-long fan of the baseball Giants–and saddened that I hadn’t shared his happiness for them when they won the world series last year.  I’d rooted for them when they were the New York Giants, then for a while after they abandoned their New Jersey, New York and Connecticut fans, but only because of my emotional investment in their players.  I eventually dropped them for the Mets.  I disliked them (and the Dodgers) for many years but last year they were my team–I liked their players and felt the organization had been punished long enough for having skipped out.  Now that I find they won one for Len, I’m even more for them!

I hope he can be replaced enough to allow Dustbooks to continue.  He certainly won’t be replaced enough to satisfy any of the many who will miss him.

Entry 476 — Bad News « POETICKS

Entry 476 — Bad News

Just last night I heard of Len Fulton’s death from Karl Kempton.  A huge loss to me personally, and to the larger world.  What small visibility I have as a critic is due almost entirely to him.  What small visibility our country’s best writers have is due in large part to him, too–due to his support of the small press and micro-press for so long.  (His American Odyssey, a Bookselling Travelogue, which is about his beginnings in his vocation, is still entertainingly and informativelyl worth reading.)

I never met him personally–or even talked to him on the phone.  But we exchanged a lot of notes over the twenty years or so that I knew him.  He was always upbeat and supportive.  In his last note to me (this June), he wished me luck with my hip, which I’d just written him I was going to have replaced.

I was amused to hear that he’d been a life-long fan of the baseball Giants–and saddened that I hadn’t shared his happiness for them when they won the world series last year.  I’d rooted for them when they were the New York Giants, then for a while after they abandoned their New Jersey, New York and Connecticut fans, but only because of my emotional investment in their players.  I eventually dropped them for the Mets.  I disliked them (and the Dodgers) for many years but last year they were my team–I liked their players and felt the organization had been punished long enough for having skipped out.  Now that I find they won one for Len, I’m even more for them!

I hope he can be replaced enough to allow Dustbooks to continue.  He certainly won’t be replaced enough to satisfy any of the many who will miss him.

Leave a Reply