Comments on: The “Poetry Boom” http://linebreak.org/blog/2009/03/01/the-poetry-boom/ A weblog from the editors of Linebreak Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:24:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Ashley http://linebreak.org/blog/2009/03/01/the-poetry-boom/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Ashley Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:03:10 +0000 http://linebreak.org/blog/?p=719#comment-88 You have good points that some do simply prefer print, and that's fine, but I see no reason why that invalidates the seriousness or literary merit of online journals, which is the problem I have with, say, the panelists at Sewanee implying that the poetry that would be published in the online counterpart to their journals would somehow be second-tier, which is the only reason I can see that people would prefer to be published in the physical magazine and which seemed to be this panelist's take: not as many poets would want to be published online, so we'll be publishing worse pieces in that forum. Your second point seems more interesting, at least to me, and more valid on some levels. You're right that if writers don't trust that an online journal will stick around, they have right to be worried about publishing there. However, as Motion concluded in the article I quoted in the post, "the real problem with poetry was ‘not one of appetite, but of delivery’". What's more important: That an individual poem from your eventual (physical) book be available in ten years, or that it's delivered more immediately and effectively to an audience hankering for contemporary poetry? It would seem to me that the more people who read your individual poems, the more people there are who would be interested in reading - and buying - your book. And, online journals are able to draw and maintain audiences more easily than print journals if only due to accessibility. I know that, in Fayetteville, Arkansas, it's difficult to get your hands on The Paris Review unless you have a subscription - let alone smaller magazines. But, no matter where you are, as long as you have internet access, you can still read Blackbird or -ahem- even Linebreak. Assuming that books are still physically published and that the author anticipates having one some day - or has plans to release one sooner than some day - there seems to be little reason to worry about the permanence of the publication. To me, at least. Also, assuming websites stick around as we know them or that old content can be uploaded to websites-of-the-future (!), why wouldn't an established journal like AGNI still have its online content available in 10 years? What stops a print publication from becoming defunct, unable to sell back-copies? I suppose they would still have a record of some sort, at least in libraries, but - maybe its just me - I've never tried to go back and read a copy of Poetry from 10 years ago. Outside of some scholarly curiosity as to how, say, Wallace Stevens changed his poem between its publication in Poetry and its publication in his book - why would I? I can understand, vaguely, the novelty of print publications, the romanticism of a printed record of one's publications - but I still have trouble understanding the whole idea. So it is? You have good points that some do simply prefer print, and that’s fine, but I see no reason why that invalidates the seriousness or literary merit of online journals, which is the problem I have with, say, the panelists at Sewanee implying that the poetry that would be published in the online counterpart to their journals would somehow be second-tier, which is the only reason I can see that people would prefer to be published in the physical magazine and which seemed to be this panelist’s take: not as many poets would want to be published online, so we’ll be publishing worse pieces in that forum.

Your second point seems more interesting, at least to me, and more valid on some levels. You’re right that if writers don’t trust that an online journal will stick around, they have right to be worried about publishing there.

However, as Motion concluded in the article I quoted in the post, “the real problem with poetry was ‘not one of appetite, but of delivery’”. What’s more important: That an individual poem from your eventual (physical) book be available in ten years, or that it’s delivered more immediately and effectively to an audience hankering for contemporary poetry?

It would seem to me that the more people who read your individual poems, the more people there are who would be interested in reading – and buying – your book. And, online journals are able to draw and maintain audiences more easily than print journals if only due to accessibility.

I know that, in Fayetteville, Arkansas, it’s difficult to get your hands on The Paris Review unless you have a subscription – let alone smaller magazines. But, no matter where you are, as long as you have internet access, you can still read Blackbird or -ahem- even Linebreak. Assuming that books are still physically published and that the author anticipates having one some day – or has plans to release one sooner than some day – there seems to be little reason to worry about the permanence of the publication. To me, at least.

Also, assuming websites stick around as we know them or that old content can be uploaded to websites-of-the-future (!), why wouldn’t an established journal like AGNI still have its online content available in 10 years? What stops a print publication from becoming defunct, unable to sell back-copies?

I suppose they would still have a record of some sort, at least in libraries, but – maybe its just me – I’ve never tried to go back and read a copy of Poetry from 10 years ago. Outside of some scholarly curiosity as to how, say, Wallace Stevens changed his poem between its publication in Poetry and its publication in his book – why would I?

I can understand, vaguely, the novelty of print publications, the romanticism of a printed record of one’s publications – but I still have trouble understanding the whole idea. So it is?

]]> By: Matt Baker http://linebreak.org/blog/2009/03/01/the-poetry-boom/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Matt Baker Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:22:07 +0000 http://linebreak.org/blog/?p=719#comment-80 It may be that you're fighting against some of the same ideas that prevent other print-to-online products have been struggling with for years. Electronic books seem to hold promise, but many people prefer "the feel of a book" to a PADD-like contraption that will probably not function in 10 years. I couldn't imagine reading a novel on my Apple Newton (circa 1997) or Palm V, and I can imagine my Kindle 2 will look long in the tooth in 2012 while my 1984 edition of "1984" will still hold up as long as we still speak the English language. Sites also suffer from the Internet Library of Alexandria problem. One recent blog posting (http://geekoutnewyork.com/2009/01/macuser-net.php) compares internet site guides from over 12 years ago to their existence today and found under 20% of the sites mentioned in the 1996 article survived. How do you get contributors to take an online journal seriously if they cannot refer to their entries in 10 years (seriously, if there's an answer, I'd like to know)? Will poetryarchive.org point to a squatting page in 2018? Will there still be web pages as we know them? Would anyone know of 'Leaves of Grass' if it was only available on Whitman's expired .Mac homepage? By the way, the Kindle 2 is pretty impressive. It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up. It may be that you’re fighting against some of the same ideas that prevent other print-to-online products have been struggling with for years. Electronic books seem to hold promise, but many people prefer “the feel of a book” to a PADD-like contraption that will probably not function in 10 years. I couldn’t imagine reading a novel on my Apple Newton (circa 1997) or Palm V, and I can imagine my Kindle 2 will look long in the tooth in 2012 while my 1984 edition of “1984″ will still hold up as long as we still speak the English language.

Sites also suffer from the Internet Library of Alexandria problem. One recent blog posting (http://geekoutnewyork.com/2009/01/macuser-net.php) compares internet site guides from over 12 years ago to their existence today and found under 20% of the sites mentioned in the 1996 article survived. How do you get contributors to take an online journal seriously if they cannot refer to their entries in 10 years (seriously, if there’s an answer, I’d like to know)? Will poetryarchive.org point to a squatting page in 2018? Will there still be web pages as we know them? Would anyone know of ‘Leaves of Grass’ if it was only available on Whitman’s expired .Mac homepage?
By the way, the Kindle 2 is pretty impressive. It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.

]]>