there is NO such thing as floundering communities
this is my dyslexic misreading of a comment from over on silliman’s blog. but i’m thinking about this in the wake of our august summer slowdown here in t.o. and the calgary- all- alberta-boosterism (which i don’t mean as a put down – save your hate mail) that is happening this week(month).
poetry communities are like very dysfunctional families. but they are organic and that means they change and they have fallow periods. this means also they can die.
here in toronto things are changing.
also on the flip side i think there is a community growing here in the wireless
so what do others out there feel about
1- toronto’s long time scene – what is happening here?
2- what is all this canadian lit blogging stuff doing?
love
dfb
21 comments:
Hi Daniel,
I've thought a little about this. A while ago, I summed up some thoughts on my blog which I'll repost an excerpt from here; they originally came from this post.
As blogs, and by extension Poet's blogs continue to grow, their growth will coincide with critical acknowledgment, if not acceptance, of the precinct of the blog as art.
As Ron Silliman has made clear, Poet's blogs mark a profound shift of attitude, and are helping to make that shift happen. In my opinion, they have about them a canon-forming authority, much in the same way that the small magazines once did. However, in the age of the blog, the small magazine lamentably is made less relevant -- an unfortunate side effect of the blog, perhaps.
What this means for Canada and Canadian poets, I'll have to chew on for a while.
I've been practicing and publishing poetry out in the burbs here for the past 5 years and am woefully ignorant of the scene in Toronto. Of course, I read about the names all of the time, but there's now way I could pick a Toronto poet out of a line-up. I'd just have to go with the poorest looking person.
More soon!
Dan
Hi Dan –thanks for the link – i like the idea of the blogroll as an extension of the self – kinda like a record collection. it is interesting that some of the first doing the blog thing were the “experimental” – and i would add to that the techno crowd (or less politely the “trekkies”).
i think because it has gotten easier to work on line and having a page (like mine – it’s easy) the online poet crowd will get lots of different types of poets with different opinions and aesthetics. this can’t be bad. will it effect the “CANON” oh that’s going to take a long time to change here in canada – i mean people still talk about purdy as the outsider of canadian poetry.
but i keep running across people on line interested in reading my new book or who have actually read it.
love
dfb
Hey Daniel (and Daniel),
I'm not sure what's going on with respect to community among Canadian lit blogs. It feels too soon to say, as many of the participants are just getting started and seem to figuring out what they want to do with a blog or whether they want to keep one at all. It does seem as if people are getting a chance to discuss topics that don't come up after readings, etc., which tends, understandably, to be mostly a social time. (But then again, as D.S.’s post points out, blogs are social too.)
I'm curious about what sort of effect (if any) blogs are having on e-mail lists and the communities that have formed around them. LEX seems pretty quiet these days. Is it just because it's summer?
Yeah, it's interesting to think about the relationship this second wave of Canadian blogs bears to the first one. Katherine Parrish and Angela (in her first incarnation) seemed to be central figures the first time around.
I feel too new to comment on the long-time Toronto scene with any kind of insight. What changes do you see, Daniel?
actually – mark i was more interested in hearing what others had to say on the toronto scene question – as i think i have been very upfront out this in e-mail, comment boxes, and interviews (open letter – not the current one the one from last fall). so I was kinda interested in what other (even new people like your self) had to say.
a quick summary – i think that there is very much a middle aged middle class waiting to get famous vibe happening.
a good example of what is happening is the pontiac review (which you mentioned today). i was at one of those last year – easily one of the worst readings i saw last year. the only exception was edward keenan who was kinda interesting. mostly silly short fiction and high school poems – the host seemed far more interested in talking up the readers bio’s, who got published in what shitty magazine, and who was to have some soon to be forgotten book published by ecw or insomniac. over all i thought it was puke suburban cool . but there was a good band who did a country version of a kinks song. so that kind of hyper cool lightweight scene is getting more and more steam. i think that is what’s happening.
“everyone in quirky poems and stories”
but i was more interested in other’s thoughts.
love
dfb
http://www.pontiacquarterly.com/pq2.1/index.html
Hey Daniel,
Well, you did ask about changes in "Toronto's long time scene," so I figured that's what you meant.
For the most part, I like the current "innovative" (for lack of a better word) scene. I think it's more of a set of overlapping scenes or clusters of people that orient themselves in relation to (this includes against) a few institutions, or at least they can be traced to them. There seem to be a number of people with generous energy making a broad range of good things happen. Actually, I'm quite amazed by this. I do see a few deficiencies however:
1) There are a number of reading series (some very good), but there are relatively few that afford an opportunity to hear someone read for a decent length of time and allow for much focus. I've mentioned this before, and I am, believe it or not, doing something about it.
2) We don't have a good forum for reviews. I'd like to see a well-edited magazine (Web or otherwise) that publishes a generous number of informative and meaningful reviews, plus interviews, essays, etc. By informative and meaningful I mean ones that aren't vying breathlessly to be future blurb copy and that aren't a showcase for the reviewer's ego as he or she tears someone's work to shreads. There are a number of mags that publish a few reviews (usually pretty short), but I think we need something more. I have high hopes for the revamped Word in this area.
Apologies for the snarkiness at the beginning of that last comment. I thought I detected some in yours, and now I'm not sure it's there.
Actually, I've been working on a distro/co-op/reading series idea that would use the web as its nexus and offer something in print as well.
Didn't Toronto's lit calendar "Word" just go online only? It's cool, and cheaper for Mercury to do so, but I think its important from a community perspective to distribute something tangible. Maybe I'm wrong.
When I have some time, I'm going to put together some ideas in the form of a post. Mark—I like the idea of a reading series that provides a decent amount of time for a reader. Need any help with this, I'd be glad to help ya out in whatever capacity?!
yea the review issue is a problem . The Word –unfortunately runs with a mostly positive review policy (and generally – the reviews are not that interesting). Nate and his GIG writes longer more in-depth reviews – but his interest is in books are not very local.
maybe what we need a a gang of 4-10 writers who will commit to writing 1 review of a serious length and content about a book (or chapbook) that they don’t have are direct connection to (not sure what i mean by this) once a month or so.
i’m not so sure about your (Marks) concerns about “hatch job reviews” cus i think we are so sensitive to bad reviews that they all get labeled “hatch job”, when they are not positive, lets face it – not all the books that come out are good. also i think one need to avoid JPF’s song that reviewers needs to “have authority to speak on” the subject – cuz i find that whole issue a little self-serving.
again i think that this is a idea that could work – and it could be all on line to start cuz that is cheap.
any comments
love
dfb
ps re the reading idea - i did something like that for about 2 years and it is a lot of work and frankly most writiers were unable to run with it. but good luck on it boys!
DFB,
I'd certainly commit to a review of serious length once a month. I'd also be happy to put together a website for said reviews, but I would be interested in having a newsprint version printed, too.
Maybe we could drum up some interest among both onliners and offliners?
D.S.: Thanks for the generous offer. My plan is to keep things quite simple and low key, at least at first, and let things evolve. I'll e-mail you on the weekend and we can talk about it.
dfb: re: negative reviews and hatchet jobs. My impression of Archer's review of Jon's and McGimpsey's books (and I don't feel like rereading it) is that the review is mostly about Archer. What the reader gets isn't meaningful information or insight but plenty of, well, entertainment (assuming he or she is sympathetic to Archer). Archer thinks the books are bad. Fine. He gives us examples of what he sees as negative features of the books. Fine. I'd like some discussion of the significance of the books' failure (i.e., what it might mean). When I read a review, I don't want a fun consumer report (which may be what the Star asks for). I'd like the review to contribute to my understanding of literature, broaden my horizons, force me to ask questions, or something.
dan - yes i think its a start of a plan. but we need a bunch more people to do this- so let continue the recruit
mark- i’m not defending archer my point is that i find the idea that “your not worthy of reviewing this book because you have no authority” or “you are to much of a snob to judge” just silly. i guess the questions is would someone question a good review with remarks about the authority of the reviewer? also being a non collage boy this is giving off university english class smells. but i could be wrong
and there are still bad books that need to be slapped down
mark would you be interested in reviewing stuff?
love
dfb
"i guess the questions is would someone question a good review with remarks about the authority of the reviewer?"
I think what Jon was getting at was that many reviewers don't make the effort to take books on their own terms. I agree that a good review (i.e., one that does make this kind of effort) shouldn't be questioned based on the reviewer's authority (i.e., qualifications or something). And of course there's nothing wrong with criticism of the terms once they're recognized.
"and there are still bad books that need to be slapped down
I agree that there are bad books (though I think my bad books are slightly different from yours). And I think these should get negative reviews and that passionately negative reviews are useful assuming they're also meaningful (see above). I'm not sure about the "slapped down" part though. It seems to me that this implies the author's reputation is the target rather than the book, which doesn't seem that effective (even tactically). Maybe I'm wrong.
D.S.: "I think its important from a community perspective to distribute something tangible."
Is this because of the face-to-face, hand-to-hand element, or do you see other reasons too?
"mark would you be interested in reviewing stuff?"
Thanks for asking me. Can I think about it? As I mentioned before, I have hopes for Word. I'm wondering if it would be better to focus our energy on helping them out (I get the sense that neither of you is too hot on them though, so I guess I'm talking about just me). With Books in Canada, etc., advancing such a conservative aesthetic, doesn't it make sense to offer a good alternative on a similar scale? I guess I'm concerned about dilution. Why not band together, you know?
P.S. When I said that "I'd like some discussion of the significance of the books' failure" up there I didn't mean to imply that I think they are failures.
I've got nothing against Word, but I remember reading something on Stuart Ross' blog. Let's see if I can dig it up. Here. Stuart writes: "Only three times a year, published online -- just didn't feel right to me." Am I to understand that Word will be publishing only every four months? I think its tough to build a community with such sparse updates.
And I'd like to see a paper version for a few reasons. First, the new is not always better than the old.
Something like Word, a literary calendar moving online (perhaps as a result of the burgeoning blog scene among writers and poets in Canada) does not assure a rapid or inevitable success, and new technology doesn't usually sweep away old technology unless the old technology is inherently flawed and the new technology is overwhelmingly superior. Moving online won't raise Word's profile, or its usefulness. Instead, moving online means dropping out of view for a number of people.
I think Word should redefine themselves in small ways; very different from a wholesale redefinition of what they are and what they do. Moving from print to online saved Codrescu's "The Exquisite Corpse" but its not the same magazine that it once was.
Also, there's something about the psychology of holding a printed text; its persuasiveness, as well as the cognitive theories of layout and design that simply can't be reproduced online.
To me, print does, and always will, mean something "more".
dfb,
i do teach at a university, and i believe in scholarship. university works for me, but it's certainly not the only way to live the writing life..
i don't see anything self-serving in demanding that reviewers know something about the topic/tradition/genre of the books they are reviewing.
i hope you guys get something together in toronto. it's always good to see alternatives to books in canada-style reviewing.
jon
hi – re word – i have known bev on and off for 20 years and i have known maria for at least 10 so i like these two people very much. my concerns are that since the change in word i guess almost 2 years ago – there really hasn’t been much change in the quality of reviews . i mean maggie does her thing – the overview which is fine – but when i read the “main feature” book reviews they are just plain uninteresting and flat. mostly they are reviews of narrative schooled poets published by aesthetically challenged presses. i’m a little unsure that the word crew is up to being “review honest” because if they were why are we having this conversation?
mark i’m interested that you think that you and i would find different books to be bad (and therefore different books that would be good). believe it or not i don’t want everyone to agree with me –i like that people’s opinions are different from mine. i’m just interested in reviews and writers being honest and not play back channel games. But i bet there are lots more books we would agree on than not.
re slap down my phrase was “and there are still bad books that need to be slapped down”. no mention of authors. authors write good books and bad books. the review game is about telling the difference. yes my language is perhaps looser (or to borrow a phrase said about Alessandro Porco – raw) than yours but i find it interesting that people read words that i didn’t write in my lines – it’s a gift.
daniel – the print idea is great except that i’m thinking about cost and distribution- both of which i know next to nothing about. i like the idea of a web thing because frankly i don’t have much space in my apartment to store too many more books and stuff – so i kinda don’t want to waste more space on review magazines when i can actually use that same space for the real books and chapbooks and exersaucers.
and jon – “i don't see anything self-serving in demanding that reviewers know something about the topic/tradition/genre of the books they are reviewing.” neither do i but my statement was if the review was a good review – would a writer (i guess you could say here you) question the authority of the reviewer to give a good review? are you unwilling to review your comments as “sour something”
love
dfb
"no mention of authors."
Yeah, you're right. I should have said the book's reputation as opposed to the book itself.
just a quick response to dan’s comment on small mags becoming less significant with the rise of poet’s blogs. as far as commentary this seems so, but there’s not much poetry on these blogs. since poetry and poetics ride together, the blogs will have to publish more of them together before the mags are defunct.
lynn
Lynn, good point. Its funny that as poets, we happily provide commentary and criticism as free content, but are less prone to post poetry.
And I was mistaken about Word going online only. Straight from their website:
"Word publishes a monthly Toronto literary calendar, six online content-heavy issues and three print content-heavy issues each year."
So they certainly are retaining the print format, which I'm glad to see.
I would be happy to handle distribution, as I'm tossing around the idea of creating an online/offline distro for smaller and micro presses, it would probably be a good idea to wrap my head around the scene. Print costs could be kept low with advertising, et al.
daniel - i guess i'm going to see what you come up with - let me know if you need a review and - i can think about it giving you something- i'm going to talk to word and see what they are doing, needing -
love
dfb
The online thing can work, really. Let me know what Word is up to. In whatever way, I look forward to working with you.
We live at a peculiar juncture, it goes without saying, wherein print and the internet still, however briefly in the grand scheme of things, co-exist as mediums.
It's cool to see how we, as poets and editors, are reacting to the rapid pace of change.
What will be interesting to watch, will be the manner by which the digital age rethinks the book, the way technology popularizes new forms of art, vis-a-vis jazz and the long-playing album. It follows that, I'm doing some pretty cool things in laying out a new book by Skip Fox, who emailed me a little while ago, bringing up the point that proportional fonts, allowing us to play with the word and the eye, only became available to poets in the last twenty years or so.
The community, now more than ever, is asking for quick, unfettered, access to work.
William Gibson has an interesting take on all of this, in the most recent issue of Wired magazine wherein he describes the the traditional album as "archaically passive". It's doomed to fail, he writes, because of another archaic term: the audience. In a refutation of Milton Berle's famous rhetorical question "what is this, an audience or an oil painting?", the audience today isn't watching at all, it's involving itself. It's becoming part of that which it consumes.
So, lets move ahead!
Hey dan – i’m not a Gibson fan- but every once in while i hear of a good line from him – like that. i personal have never had an audience or rather i have not really every concern myself about an audience – i just figure they would show up when they were ready – hence all my hugely over produced publications and vast amounts spent on PR. i have always liked the word of mouth – especially regarding words – where so many book are reviewed as “classic” and “groundbreaking” – it’s very difficult to believe any of it. and writers sometimes have their heads so far up their asses that i think they start to eat up their own crap. hence my blog note here which for sure was about cover blurbs – but frankly sometimes the whole books thing is so full of shit.
anyway love
dfb
Post a Comment