Monday, August 01, 2005

Things Important to My Thinking

Spent the morning and afternoon shopping and looking around. Gideon will be a very chic baby this fall/winter. May have to buy a suitcase to bring all of his stuff home. Still haven't found that baby mime outfit I have my heart set on. But I have faith.

Spent the late afternoon and evening sleeping. I have a very nasty cold and it's pissing me off. I wanted to wear my new skirt this evening.

Tomorrow evening I'm attending a reception at the Musee d'Orsay.

-------------

I never said other journals should adopt a one-poet at a time format. My point was if you're going on about how you're going to distribute poetry in a new way -- tell me what this new way is (cause honestly I'm very interested in that kind of stuff). Perhaps there are some really inventive ways to present "issues" online while following the print standard. I haven't seen or heard about such ways. I'm not talking what kind of poems or context or what writers are important to who's thinking -- I'm talking about revolutionalizing the way people physically read poetry. I never claimed to have revolutionalized anything, just that it was something I thought about when focusing on my goals (which I'm not saying should be anyone else's goals).

I'm a Capricorn, the last thing I am is revolutionary. I'm Richard Nixon in a push-up bra.

Anyone who's reading this: You're more experimental and revolutionary than me.

I'm a New Sincerist. You all know what that means.

I'm not saying anyone's goals for their publication are unworthy or tired or been done before (although other people are, that's not the point I'm making). When I inquire about new ways of presenting poetry and the response is Olsen, HD (whom I love), essential figures, International poets, poetics, theory, context, etc., we're not talking about the same thing. Saying the issue route is the way to go because that's the consensus at a lot of other good journals may be accurate, but it's not new or revolutionary. Perhaps issues are the way to go for many online publications.

Just don't say you're rethinking how poetry is distributed, cause you're not.

And I don't mind criticism on No Tell, although I wish the criticism was honest because I don't think it has anything to do with the one poet at a time format. I think the criticism stems from the uber-girlie design and poems published. I think that's where the lame and begging of ridicule "not important to my thinking" dismissal comes from. But it would take balls to go after the work because so many of one's friends' poems appear on those pink and beige pages.

The phrase "good poems" in such context comes off as dismissive.

But I'm used to it.

8 Comments:

At 8:48 PM, Blogger Laurel said...

I'm a Capricorn too. And a New Sincerist. Should we start a club?

 
At 9:01 PM, Blogger Whimsy said...

Me too, on both counts (Jan 9th).

 
At 10:02 PM, Blogger didi said...

actually we are going with one poet a month starting in january - I am calling them mipo apostles.

d.

 
At 11:46 PM, Blogger Tony Tost said...

Don't think I ever said I was rethinking or reinventing how poetry is distributed (the cheapness & distribution of the Internet takes care of that issue for me) -- my main point is to say No Tell is focused on and addresses a distinct problem that faces journals: how to present poems in a uniquely readable fashion. The problem/issue that I'm more interested in is different: what becomes established, journal by journal, as the normal view of what poetry is. So in that sense, abandoning the issue format wouldn't be, that's right, important to my thinking on this. The reason I've never gone into criticizing any poems in No Tell is because I see no reason to do so; it wasn't the issue for me. I really dug Zach's poems, and Laura Carter's, Ken Rumble's and quite a few more people's. I've never implied I hope that No Tell doesn't work -- the reason I brought up the issue issue is that it is often presented as a critique of online journals, which in some cases might be valid. I even went through a period where I thought I should make Fascicle a sort of house with specific rooms to be curated by different people, with new content brought in at people's pace -- a visual poetry room, a translation room, a north carolina room -- ultimately I rejected it because of logistics, and also I realized that I was trying to reinvent something (the issue) that I didn't actually have any beef with, and that I was quarantining these different strains when I wanted to bundle them together.

For me reinventing the presentation of poetry would pull energy and attention away from where I'm really interested, the sources/contexts from which poetry arises. Which isn't an issue of distribution, sure, but is an issue of circulation -- that's why the talk of Olson, poetry in translation, local communities, etc. seems relevant to me.

 
At 2:22 AM, Blogger Reb said...

Then I misread your July 18 post -- and as I go back, I'm misreading it again, but I'll take your word here.

You already blog quite a bit about your personal life. You never write, you never call, but I know what's on your iPod, that you just celebrated your 30th birthday, I saw pictures of your beautiful wedding, and know what movies you've recently seen. So don't think that's my beef. I've met you. I can attest you're a human being.

 
At 12:44 PM, Blogger Tony Tost said...

Reb, you know of course not everything I write on my blog is aimed directly at you. The stuff about blogging about my personal life exists in the rhetorical space created by my pissing match w/ the male sincerists.

 
At 2:27 PM, Blogger Tony said...

Reb,

I will not be as ambiguous as this heathen. EVERYTHING on my blog IS directed at you. That way, there's no confusion.

Tost, if I call you a "heathen" I'm only kidding.

Love and peace,
Tony

 
At 4:16 PM, Blogger andy mr. said...

Hey Tost, I wouldn't call getting a golden shower a pissing contest.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home