‘zine wld. (there are not too many
poets…there are too few edditurs)
Copyright
© by Tim Scannell,
3/26/02
It is a waste of time and energy for editors, opinion-folk, poets
and prose writers to rail against mainstream publishers, mass-market
zines, academic journals, and the itsy cliques of MFA nudge ‘n’ wink
scribblers. Mainstream
publishers should NOT take pity on or patronize the thousands of
alternate zine and small press chapbook publishers roundabout.
The mission of mainstream publishers is, first, to make money
and, second, to display/promote their authors/products in as many venues
as practicable vis-à-vis the bottom
line. The same mission/reasoning applies to mass-market magazines
– period!
The mission/rationale for academic journals is a bit more complex
- not burdensomely so – and their pulse, too, may be
taken/read/understood with a very little bit of analytical skill: they
serve and promote the waxing and waning vagaries of institutional
fad/fancy. If the
decade’s promotion is Womens’
Studies or Slave Writings
or Ignored Chicano Writers (or
Eastern European Poets Under
Pseudo-Capitalism) – well then, their journals will be chockablock
with those materials (and concomitant internecine warfare’s variegated
array of Hill of Bean battles…or Mountain & Molehill raids). And ALL those materials will have nothing whatever to do with
the Western Canon, inasmuch as they are mere emblems of the transitory
notions of the institutions represented – period!
Ergo, why should they have any interest at all in alternative
zines/presses/writers, unless their grist-for-the-mill happens to be,
for example, Shoestring ‘Zines
or Bukowski/Ginsberg: Darlings of
Liberalism?
Finally – and short shrift – keep uppermost in mind that
members in MFA cliques make a living in the above mentioned mainstream
publishing world, or will be teaching in institutions
producing/promoting MFA-ilk. All
mouthpieces, then, for whatever mainstream/institutional fad happens to
be de rigueur (most recently, Affirmative Action/Political Correctness).
It is simply a question of livelihood, a question of developing
fresh fodder for dissertation, treatise – government grant (ie., tax
money) – period!
The above, then, as prologue for a genuine – worthy –
concern: our own bailiwick of zines numbering, perhaps, 5,000
(guesstimate from directories like Dustbooks,
Poet’s Market, and Light’s
List). I have had 1,000
appearances in over 500 different periodicals – reading all from
cover-to-cover – which I cite only to state that I am not an expert;
and to indicate that inferences are made from a 10% exposure.
Restated, I have NOT seen 90 of every 100 zines in this huge
domain!
My findings are these.
First, the sincerity of
each and every editor cannot be in doubt.
Keep in mind Oscar Wilde’s assertion that “Even bad poetry is
sincere.” Scores of zines
are simply folded copy paper stapled at a corner, most without card
covers, most eclectically illustrated courtesy of artistic friends (and
the engargement/reduction buttons of xerography).
I give very high marks for this kind of hustle – formats of
matchbook covers, wallpaper, 3X5 cards and brown paper bags
notwithstanding.
Second, most editors keep a consistent tone in their zines, issue after issue. If the desired relationship to the audience is to rant
against the Establishment – that is what the audience will
consistently receive. If
the tone of the zine is
spiritual, Christian uplift – the audience will get that.
I give high marks for consistency.
Third, finally, and my one general criticism. Most editors are compilers
of poems, etc. They are not
editors. There is some –
errant – kindness of soul in most not to amend poetry/prose – even
an individual work – for consistent punctuation, spelling, grammar and
‘sense’. I have no idea
why this is so often the case. A
touchstone admonition for all editors, however, might be to know that
even T.S. Eliot had the first
three pages of his Waste Land
entirely crossed out by its editor, Ezra Pound.
And Ezra also told Tom to get rid of that working title, He
Do the Police in Different Voices!
I edited 130 issues of my own little poetry zine – Muse of Fire (sorry, now ceased, but over 4,000 poems by 400 poets),
and I don’t think that more than 3 or 4 poets saw print without edits
for spelling, etc. I have
never tampered with any poet’s persona,
tone or voice, because those are the few elements of Mnemosyne an editor has
no right whatsoever to interfere with.
And as my definition of ‘poetic license’ is quite broad, I
did not edit a poet’s consistent use of lowercase lettering, nonce
words, or line-length idiosyncrasy (poems should illustrate imaginative
use of pitch, stress, juncture)!
It is far too small a celebration of our craft if zine editors
and opinion-folk are merely compilers and commentators of “too many
poets”. I repeat the
assertion made above: there have never been too many poets – in the
past, now, or in any worthy future.
Does the oceanographer wail – too much sea?
Does the astronaut bemoan – too much space?
Does the financier sob – too much money?
Nonsense!
Editors and opinion-folk must know the Western Canon…yes, from
Homer and Hesiod to Beowulf and Billy Shakespeare; and yes, from sweet
Emily Dickinson and Wally Whitman to Bobby Frost – and as gawdawful a
poet as he is - even unto Robert Pinsky.
Furthermore, editors and opinion-folk must know the short-list
jargon of those broad and generous parameters of our language, and the
shorter-list jargon of the craft of poetry.
But basically, the bad habits I’ve noticed in reading hundreds
of alternate zines are 1) the useless attacks against mainstream
media/cliques when, in fact, none owe us any civic/literary duty – and
have every right to ignore us; and 2) the sophomoric tendency to merely
compile whatever comes through the transom, as though whichever pen
touched whatever paper were sacred wine filling the Holy Grail; as
though whatever notion a writer had at whichever hour of the day were
impermeable to evaluation and editing – explication and criticism. Nonsense!
The
cheap, ubiquitous computer and copy machine provide font/illustration
galore – everywhere! Ditto
for the handmade zine – hands everywhere!
The challenge for our zine world is to have editors and
opinion-folk whose minds are both nurturing and critical, whose
knowledge is both thorough and receptive.
And our consistent – insistent – watchword toward imaginative
writing should be no different than it is toward technology, philosophy,
ideology – or lifestyle: garbage
in, garbage out!
It is a waste of time and energy for editors, opinion-folk, poets
and prose writers to rail against mainstream publishers, mass-market
zines, academic journals, and the itsy cliques of MFA nudge ‘n’ wink
scribblers. Mainstream
publishers should NOT take pity on or patronize the thousands of
alternate zine and small press chapbook publishers roundabout.
The mission of mainstream publishers is, first, to make money
and, second, to display/promote their authors/products in as many venues
as practicable vis-à-vis the bottom
line. The same mission/reasoning applies to mass-market magazines
– period!
The mission/rationale for academic journals is a bit more complex
- not burdensomely so – and their pulse, too, may be
taken/read/understood with a very little bit of analytical skill: they
serve and promote the waxing and waning vagaries of institutional
fad/fancy. If the
decade’s promotion is Womens’
Studies or Slave Writings
or Ignored Chicano Writers (or
Eastern European Poets Under
Pseudo-Capitalism) – well then, their journals will be chockablock
with those materials (and concomitant internecine warfare’s variegated
array of Hill of Bean battles…or Mountain & Molehill raids). And ALL those materials will have nothing whatever to do with
the Western Canon, inasmuch as they are mere emblems of the transitory
notions of the institutions represented – period!
Ergo, why should they have any interest at all in alternative
zines/presses/writers, unless their grist-for-the-mill happens to be,
for example, Shoestring ‘Zines
or Bukowski/Ginsberg: Darlings of
Liberalism?
Finally – and short shrift – keep uppermost in mind that
members in MFA cliques make a living in the above mentioned mainstream
publishing world, or will be teaching in institutions
producing/promoting MFA-ilk. All
mouthpieces, then, for whatever mainstream/institutional fad happens to
be de rigueur (most recently, Affirmative Action/Political Correctness).
It is simply a question of livelihood, a question of developing
fresh fodder for dissertation, treatise – government grant (ie., tax
money) – period!
The above, then, as prologue for a genuine – worthy –
concern: our own bailiwick of zines numbering, perhaps, 5,000
(guesstimate from directories like Dustbooks,
Poet’s Market, and Light’s
List). I have had 1,000
appearances in over 500 different periodicals – reading all from
cover-to-cover – which I cite only to state that I am not an expert;
and to indicate that inferences are made from a 10% exposure.
Restated, I have NOT seen 90 of every 100 zines in this huge
domain!
My findings are these.
First, the sincerity of
each and every editor cannot be in doubt.
Keep in mind Oscar Wilde’s assertion that “Even bad poetry is
sincere.” Scores of zines
are simply folded copy paper stapled at a corner, most without card
covers, most eclectically illustrated courtesy of artistic friends (and
the engargement/reduction buttons of xerography).
I give very high marks for this kind of hustle – formats of
matchbook covers, wallpaper, 3X5 cards and brown paper bags
notwithstanding.
Second, most editors keep a consistent tone in their zines, issue after issue. If the desired relationship to the audience is to rant
against the Establishment – that is what the audience will
consistently receive. If
the tone of the zine is
spiritual, Christian uplift – the audience will get that.
I give high marks for consistency.
Third, finally, and my one general criticism. Most editors are compilers
of poems, etc. They are not
editors. There is some –
errant – kindness of soul in most not to amend poetry/prose – even
an individual work – for consistent punctuation, spelling, grammar and
‘sense’. I have no idea
why this is so often the case. A
touchstone admonition for all editors, however, might be to know that
even T.S. Eliot had the first
three pages of his Waste Land
entirely crossed out by its editor, Ezra Pound.
And Ezra also told Tom to get rid of that working title, He
Do the Police in Different Voices!
I edited 130 issues of my own little poetry zine – Muse of Fire (sorry, now ceased, but over 4,000 poems by 400 poets),
and I don’t think that more than 3 or 4 poets saw print without edits
for spelling, etc. I have
never tampered with any poet’s persona,
tone or voice, because those are the few elements of Mnemosyne an editor has
no right whatsoever to interfere with.
And as my definition of ‘poetic license’ is quite broad, I
did not edit a poet’s consistent use of lowercase lettering, nonce
words, or line-length idiosyncrasy (poems should illustrate imaginative
use of pitch, stress, juncture)!
It is far too small a celebration of our craft if zine editors
and opinion-folk are merely compilers and commentators of “too many
poets”. I repeat the
assertion made above: there have never been too many poets – in the
past, now, or in any worthy future.
Does the oceanographer wail – too much sea?
Does the astronaut bemoan – too much space?
Does the financier sob – too much money?
Nonsense!
Editors and opinion-folk must know the Western Canon…yes, from
Homer and Hesiod to Beowulf and Billy Shakespeare; and yes, from sweet
Emily Dickinson and Wally Whitman to Bobby Frost – and as gawdawful a
poet as he is - even unto Robert Pinsky.
Furthermore, editors and opinion-folk must know the short-list
jargon of those broad and generous parameters of our language, and the
shorter-list jargon of the craft of poetry.
But basically, the bad habits I’ve noticed in reading hundreds
of alternate zines are 1) the useless attacks against mainstream
media/cliques when, in fact, none owe us any civic/literary duty – and
have every right to ignore us; and 2) the sophomoric tendency to merely
compile whatever comes through the transom, as though whichever pen
touched whatever paper were sacred wine filling the Holy Grail; as
though whatever notion a writer had at whichever hour of the day were
impermeable to evaluation and editing – explication and criticism. Nonsense!
The
cheap, ubiquitous computer and copy machine provide font/illustration
galore – everywhere! Ditto
for the handmade zine – hands everywhere!
The challenge for our zine world is to have editors and
opinion-folk whose minds are both nurturing and critical, whose
knowledge is both thorough and receptive.
And our consistent – insistent – watchword toward imaginative
writing should be no different than it is toward technology, philosophy,
ideology – or lifestyle: garbage
in, garbage out!
Return to S&D