Poetry Hut Blog
Poetry News For February 20, 2007

9 Responses to: “Poetry News For February 20, 2007”

1. Sam Rasnake responds:
   Posted: February 20th, 2007 at 2:43 pm →

   I have mixed emotions about the Levine episode. Interesting article though–

   As for your film list, Jilly– wonderful. Especially fond of Metropolis, Dead Man (an underrated film), Carnival of Souls, and Blue Velvet.

2. Jeffrey Levine responds:
   Posted: February 20th, 2007 at 6:37 pm →

   I have mixed emotions about the Levine episode, too. Most of all, I wish Poets & Writers had done a better drawing of me. Makes me look pretty diabolical with those close-set eyes and pursed lips. The most interesting thing about the article, from my perspective, is that P&W calls for an internet vote on a non-existent issue. At the end of the day, nobody got a “bye” — every manuscript was read in the first round. In any event, we are pround of our still unblemished record for fairness. Every manuscript gets read. All are read blind. No personal or professional or student/teacher relationship ever enters into the judging. Ever. Consider that of our first five Dorset Prizes, three have gone to first books. So, by the time our spring list comes out, we will have gotten 63 books of poetry into the world in six years. It would be nice send those books out into a less belligerent, more tolerant world.

   Jeffrey Levine
   Tupelo Press

3. Anne responds:
   Posted: February 20th, 2007 at 6:57 pm →

   Ugh, colds suck — I just got over one myself. Feel better!

4. Jilly Dybka responds:
   Posted: February 21st, 2007 at 9:44 am →

   Thanks Anne & Sam. I was going to visit my mom this weekend in Detroit but this cold or whatever is the last thing she needs.

   Hi Jeffrey — I met you at West Chester in 04 while I was there on a scholarship. You seemed like a nice guy, and I think that is why this whole “episode” was so surprising to many people. I’d never heard anything untoward about you nor the press. It’s good to hear your side of things, directly.

   I’ll lay my biases out on the table — I’m not a fan on the contest “system.” I think Foetry has done a service to the poetry community by pointing out a lot unfairness. Do I agree with the ham-fisted and sometimes gleeful and knee-jerked way they have sometimes gone about it? No.

   Just to clear up some questions I have about the “episode:”

   What would you have done differently?
   Did the manuscripts of the people who paid $295 for the personal critiques automatically skip the 1st round of judging for the Dorset Prize?

   Thanks
   Jilly

5. Valerie Loveland responds:
   Posted: February 21st, 2007 at 10:30 am →

   Good movie list. Metropolis is awesome.

6. Jeffrey Levine responds:
   Posted: February 21st, 2007 at 11:21 am →

   Hi Jilly,

   Good questions. Well, first of all, let’s not lose sight of the important stuff. We run an open reading period (which is not a contest) in order to give additional publishing opportunities to poets. Following the July open readings, we committed to seven new books by six different poets. Tupelo Press is nonprofit. We make no money. I draw no salary or other benefits—none–and neither does my managing editor. We volunteer all of our time, and I, personally, make up Tupelo’s annual cash shortfall out of my own pocket.

   I understand that many have trouble with the contest system, and I sympathize with that. But in the real world of literary publishing, virtually every literary press (and most journals) would disappear from the earth without the revenues that contests bring. Grant money is virtually nonexistent, and so I and every other publisher spend most of our time begging foundations and wealthy individuals for donations. It’s never-ending, tiresome, and frustrating.

   The other end of the spectrum is just as disappointing: poets want to be published, but for the most part, poetry books don’t sell. Not even to poets. So you refer to “my side of things” – but in truth, the “controversy” is far removed from the reality of the day-to-day business of the independent press, which is to find ways to stay in business so that we can find ways to get books into print.

   As to the so-called episode. Well. We read 1,000 manuscripts. That’s 68,000 pages of poetry. It takes months and months. So after this “episode,” the first thing I’m considering doing differently is not holding an open reading period. It’s a huge amount of work, and the fact is, whether we select one book or a ten, that still leaves 990 people disappointed. If we do decide to offer another open reading period, clearly I’ll never offer to write any sort of critique, even a short one. A short critique times 20 or 30 is work. Times 100 or 200 is nuts. Time 1,000 is certifiably insane.

   As to those who asked for full-manuscript reviews (what you refer to as $295 personal critiques), well, in the first place, those who asked for such critiques – as I clarified in the Tupelo Press newsletter and to Poets & Writers – would not have been eligible to enter that manuscript in future Tupelo Press contests, much less skip the first round of reading for the Dorset Prize. But it’s a moot point. After speaking with Jeffrey Lependorf, Exec. Director of the Council of Literary Magazines & Presses (CLMP) about the perception that I should not have offered those reviews, I decided (and announced in the Newsletter and to Poets & Writers), that there would be no full-length manuscript reviews. Every manuscript sent for a review – and, of course, every check – was returned.

   As I said yesterday, nobody got a “bye” in the first round of reading for the Dorset Prize. Nobody. The P&W online poll is asking about a nonexistent situation.

   So what would I do differently? Obviously, I wish I’d never offered to do a review. It was too emotionally loaded for everybody, and frankly, would have been far too much work for me. While I’ve tried over the years to be an accessible publisher/editor–I answer Tupelo emails personally—just as clearly, I wish I’d not offered to write any sort of manuscript feedback. When August came around and I had 1,000 manuscripts stacked up in my basement, I was ready to move to Outer Mongolia. There was no human way to conquer that mountain.

   As to foetry – every “industry” needs its watchdogs. They (whoever “they” are) have ferreted out some pretty bad stuff going on in the contest world. But it sometimes turns into a feeding frenzy, and the hate-mongering it breeds causes its contributors to almost gleeful play havoc with the reputations of even the most ethical of presses and individuals, and we – Tupelo Press, are so proud of our record for adhering to the highest ethical standards. It seems to me that for every thoughtful, analytical, well-intentioned contributor to that sort of list, they seem to attract four or five people with angry, defiant, scattershot personalities who actually seem to want to find evidence of foul play whether or not it exists. The collateral harm to real flesh-and-blood people caused by those McCarthyesque methods, in my opinion, far outweighs the good they do. And you’d be amazed how many people think that because they read something offered up by a contributor to foetry that it must be true. At least Poets & Writers interviewed me. Nobody affiliated with foetry cared to do so.

   We all have a responsibility to the community of writers – editors, publisher, journalists, and poets alike—to act ethically, yes, and to treat each other fairly and humanely, and, as writers and human beings, to act in the world with a certain amount of grace.

   Jeffrey

7. Sam Rasnake responds:
   Posted: February 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pm →

   Mr. Levine,

   I appreciate your comments here. I probably should have explained my initial comment. My doubts about the article stem from the fact that the article, in my opinion, appeared too slanted against you and Tupelo Press. It seems to me that a similar standard of argument could be leveled at MFA programs and workshop circuits. But, P&W doesn’t seem poised to fight those battles. Why this one? Why Tupelo?

   As you point out– the impossible task of short critiques for such a mountain of mss., and you did return the checks for the full-ms. reviews and removed them from contention. Thanks for your explanation.

8. Jilly Dybka responds:
   Posted: February 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 am →

   Thanks Jeffrey. I try to support small presses and lit mags as much as I am financially able.

9. Jilly Dybka responds:
   Posted: February 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 am →

   Valerie — Metropolis is on my “would bring me out of a coma” list

Sorry. Comments are closed.