Here at last is my piece on online poetry: Online poetry: A thriving community.
Below are links to all of the relevant posts from which I drew for the article. This is kind of an experiment.What you have below is the raw material I used to write the piece. The piece is my take on that material. Had someone else written the piece, it would have been different. Maybe not wildly different, but different. At any rate, I think this will enable us all to get at the truth of the subject better than by simply having my piece by itself and nothing more. You can comment online at http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14622444.htm. So go to!
Of course, you can also comment here, too.
OK, folks ...
Online poetry update ...
Online poetry link No. 1 ...
Online poetry link No. 2 ...
Online poetry update ...
Online poetry link No. 3 ...
Poetry online (cont'd) ...
Progress report on online poetry ...
And here's another poem ...
We've found yet more ...
Another online poetry link ...
Why stop now?
Deadline extension ...
Online poetry update ...
I received no less than five emails about your article and have seen a couple of blogposts as well. I think that's one of the things that makes internet poetry so exciting: The incredibly rapid transmission of information.
ReplyDeleteWhat's most exciting to me is the number of non-poets, and non-poetry readers, I get coming to my blog who comment favorably on the poetry. In the mish-mash of poetry sites, we can lure unsuspecting readers in, readers who would never pick up a "Poetry" or a collected works.
Hi Julie,
ReplyDeleteI quite agree. My whole point in doing this was simply to draw people's attention to the fact that there is a lot of poetry being written by a lot of different people. That, in my view, is a good start.
I know links to your article will go exponential
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing this. I have enjoyed our email/blog conversation about poetry. And thank you for making me look so good in your article. :)
I've added a link to the article and your blog in my latest blog post.
Nicely done, Frank.
best,
lisa
Those of us who started out in the "underground press" in the seventies and eighties have been amazed to see the interest in poetry generated by the Internet. I suspect that the medium has exposed many more folks to poetry, rather than giving a voice to a lot of would-be poets who had no avenue of expression beforehand. Poetry still plays a relatively small role in the overall scheme of things, but any attention is welcomed.
ReplyDeleteMy 'zine has been on hiatus for a year while I finished a novel. With that project now wrapped, I plan to rejoin the fray soon.
Just echoing the words of support: thanks for putting this out there in the non-virtual world. As I think the comment field in this blog has suggested in the past three months, the subject could easily fill the whole books section if you tried to treat every aspect of it. Good on ya for getting it into fighting trim.
ReplyDeleteerr...that'd be three weeks, rather than months...editors are good people to have around...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Frank. Involvement is a great start.
ReplyDeleteAs Ted Kooser said recently in an interview by Teresa Weaver:
"...I don't think there would be anything wrong if everybody was writing poetry. It's a pretty good way to spend your time, I think. There have been societies - Asian societies, for instance - in which writing poetry and doing calligraphy and things like that were all just a part of your basic education and way of living."
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/04/23/bk.kooserprofile.0423.p1.php?section=oregonlife
Contrast that with Dr. Joseph Salemi's essay on the dangers of amateur poetry:
"There is far too much poetry being written and published. Never before in the history of English literature has so much text been generated by so many self-designated poets. No one, even if he were crazy enough to want to, could possibly read all the poems printed in a single year in the Anglophone world. We have more damned poems than New Jersey has mosquitoes. "
http://www.n2hos.com/acm/cult122001.html
Who is right and who is wrong? Time will tell, but I'm in Kooser's camp.
Change is only threatens those at the top.
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeleteIt could fill the paper, not just the book section. Thanks.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the article. Thanks for the expanded blogroll. Your interest in this and the effort you've invested is greatly appreciated. Certainly, I think you deserve a medal.
Should I point out that 397,000 pages reported by Google to have the words 'online+poetry' in them does not quantify the number of poetry websites that exist? Or that Technorati cites a Pew Internet Study that states bloggers constitute only about 11% of internet users? But you're right, the online poetry community is thriving and whatever the number is, it is a large number.
* *
*
For the copy desk headliner - Is it literature? Of course the answer is, "of course it's literature."
It'll be more easily recognized as such as the internet grows. One billion users today, up from 16 million ten years ago. As more litteratuers show up with blogs, in workshops, appearing in reviews and journals. OK, the quality is suspect. But Sturgeon's Law, if one believes it, applies to the print on paper world, too, and is anyone wondering if what comes out of MSM should be called literature? Anyone want to take that vote on Dan Brown?
An academician who excludes online poetry from his definition of literature is probably a fool. Or a Luddite. A computer-phobe, maybe? That academician is in for a surprise. It's a new world for poetry. It begins with websites, blogs and special purpose communities that front 'Print On Demand' anthologies and collections sold over the net. Publishers, distributors, and bookshop proprietors who, after all, don't spend very much effort on poetry are the ones to be excluded this time around. And if they defend their limited landscapes and ivory tower awards with slim definitions of what constitutes literature they will become irrelevant. Certainly, as far as poetry is concerned, here is an argument they're irrelevant already.
-blue
Hi Frank
ReplyDeleteRg George here, one of the Directors of the IBPC. Your article was very thought provoking and is sure to stir-up some interest to quiet but well alive online-poetry communities. We need more voices such as yours. The members of said poetry communities have so much to offer.
Rg George
aka cafeRg
Founder - SplashHall Poetry Community
Frank—
ReplyDeleteThanks for a good article, and for triggering a great discussion. I've enjoyed the dialogue and discussion, and hope it's the start of Something.
Also, thanks for the mention in the article itself—caught me by surprise, as I'm used to being invisible and low-key. Nice to be quoted in such a good article!
I'm thinking about where to go next, with all this. for starters, having written numerous essays on poetry, especially haiku, I'm thinking of starting up a blog of my own, devoted to the topic. I'll let you know.
My very best regards—
—AD
I put a link to the article at my poetry news blog, Poetry Hut. (There's already a link to your blog there.)
ReplyDeleteAnd I just linked to Poetry Hut and to much else - as my latest post indicates. Thanks all.
ReplyDeleteI like this experiment. It's a bit too engrossing to follow all the contributions, help I've got a life to get back too.
ReplyDeleteAs for getting past the gatekeepers, I'm sure online communities will spawn their own in due course, they might be a different breed than the existing literary gatekeepers, but that can only be a good thing.
An excellent article. You realise, of course, that you need to address the question of online fiction next! Over at Skintwriter's blog they've already been discussing its pitfalls and potential.
ReplyDeleteWow, see what blog searching can do for the average blogger. Thanks!
ReplyDeletehttp://onemyth.blogspot.com/
Wow, see what blog searching can do for the average blogger. Thanks!
ReplyDelete