The Internet has made self publishing a whole lot easier. In many respects that’s a good thing. Were it not for the ease of use of capable technology, financial accessibility of the platform, and the internal drive to pursue it, I would not be able to write and publish this blog. All poetry bloggers owe a debt to Ron Silliman and a few others who pioneered this trail for us (Silliman is the most successful of the pioneers).
Unfortunately, most of what is published online in the way of poetry, just as in print, is poetry rather than commentary on poetics, or essays. That is one of the reasons why I spend so much time on World Class Poetry Blog discussing poetics. There just isn’t enough of it and that’s a problem.
What there is plenty of instead is the publishing of poetry. It might seem strange for a poet, and someone who enjoys reading poetry, to say that free and accessible poetry is a problem. But it is. The reason I say that is because much of what is published online, just as in print, is rubbish and ought not to be read at all.
Why Single Out Online Publishing?
The first and obvious question I know I’ll get from readers about making this statement is, “If most poetry published in print and online is bad poetry then why single out online poetry as a problem?” That’s a good question and one well worth asking.
The reason I single out online publishing is because there are fewer barriers to entry for the self publisher (and the bulk of the problem is with self publishing).
Print publishing always bears an expense. Even a small chapbook costs the self publisher something. Online, however, self publishers can open up an account at Blogger or WordPress – and many have – which is free, and publish their full portfolio of poetic works for the world to see. No expense. No barrier to entry. The learning curve for using Blogger and WordPress is nil. A basic ability to read and comprehend a keyboard is all that is necessary.
So there are really two basic barriers to entry for self publishers that make it easier to publish online than in print:
- Financial
- Technological
Then there are two more barriers to entry that I would call indirect barriers to entry to publication in the broader sense:
- Market Demand
- Built-In Gatekeepers
Poetry is deemed a low-value item by most people in our culture. For a print publisher, even an independent press or self publisher, that is itself an indirect barrier to entry. In many respects, this is a larger barrier to entry for independent presses because there are always more expenses than the mere cost of printing (marketing, delivery, payroll, etc). But the publisher must always recoup expenses in order to continue publishing, and for the self publisher with no name recognition or reputable publishing house behind him, that can be an issue.
Which brings me to my next point. In order to get published by a reputable publisher, a poet must go through at least one gatekeeper. If one seeks publication through a journal, there is an editor (and even small journals have at least one). At larger publications there may be an additional gatekeeper who is a reader and whose job it is to read through a slush pile and recommend the best picks to the editor or publisher, who then selects from the best of those. Other publications use a “checks and balances” system that require multiple decision makers, co-editors usually, to give their input. Even book publishers have a system that requires one or more people to read manuscripts and approve them, so for a poet that has no name recognition and few publication credits this is another barrier to entry to the world of publication itself.
To get over the hurdles of these barriers to entry, many poets have succumbed to the temptation of online self publishing and that’s the reason for this discussion.
Why Online Self Publishing Is A Form Of Vanity
Vanity publishing has traditionally involved an independent publishing house providing a service for authors who pay to be published. In essence, the author pays for the manufacturing costs of getting published then they are faced with the ardent task of recouping their investment through marketing and sales of their product. Most do not recoup their investment. But they feel good about being published and have bragging rights.
Some vanity publishers exist in the form of a contest where the poet sends in a submission along with an entry fee. This is a more subtle form of vanity because it acts under the veneer of respectability. If the poet “wins” the contest, she is “honored” with publication. Most of these vanity schemes, however, publish all contest entrants so there isn’t really much of an honor other than the warm, fuzzy feeling the poet gets in the pit of his stomach for being suckered.
Thanks to Blogger and WordPress, a poet can get that warm and fuzzy without an entry fee or paying for publication costs. The poet may not have any more readers than before, but she gets all of the same benefits, including bragging rights, with none of the expenses or drawbacks to other forms of vanity.
One can refer to online self publishing as “independent publishing” or anything else for that matter, but I consider it vanity publishing because, with a few exceptions, most poets publishing themselves online would probably not be able to get into print through traditional means of publication. Unless they paid the entry fee or the manufacturing costs, many of those poets would simply send in poem after poem after poem and get nothing back but rejection letters, if that. That hardly classifies someone as a member of the esteemed literati.
Now I’m not saying that self publishing is itself a vain pursuit. Many fine poets and writers were self publishers – Dickens, Whitman, Poe, and I could spend days going through the list – but there is something about the nature of vanity publishing in general that tends to take away from the value of and credibility of being a published author or poet. But what is that exactly?
How Vanity Destroys Value
Vanity destroys value in a number of ways. First, by masquerading as something of value it pretends to be the thing that it imitates. That’s always destructive. Just ask any Christian who considers the arch-nemesis of Jesus, Satan, to be a faux “angel of light”.
Secondly, vanity destroys because it really doesn’t bother with the task of self improvement. This is a bigger issue because art always retains its value by being something that is in possession of admirable qualities. Those qualities vary from work to work, but in general they consist of
- Uniqueness – Any work of art, be it poetry, photography, sculpture, dance, et. al. must bear a mark of individual originality. People who see value in any art form see an intrinsic value in the uniqueness of the work itself. No one wants to see a copy of something else. Everyone values originality.
- Connectivity – A work must also connect to some audience. It may not connect with the entire human race. It may hold some value only for a particular subset of humans based on race, religion, nationality, gender, or some other identification class. But a work of value must connect with some audience.
- Experiential Compensation – Finally, a work of art must provide an experience that acts as a form of reward for the audience. This is the subjective element of art. One person’s experience may be entirely different than another person’s experience, but the value in literature comes from this experience. Whether it makes one laugh, instills fear, or creates catharsis in some other way, a positive or negative reaction can be valuable enough in and of itself to prove a work of art as something worthy to be recognized.
So when we apply these three general values to poetry we can easily see the problem with vanity publishing. These three values may exist in great abundance but generally speaking exist only for the author, or primarily for the author and self publisher, but generally not for anyone else. The vanity publication is valuable to the publisher because the publisher believes that these three values exist and that others will recognize them; unfortunately, that rarely happens.
Fixing The Problem Of Vanity
There is only one way that I’m aware of to fix the problem of vanity. The vain must achieve an element of self awareness as it applies to that vanity. Calling oneself an independent publisher when no one else sees you that way does not make you an independent publisher any more than a man walking into a room and announcing himself a bag of raw fish makes him a bag of raw fish. A thing is what it is, not what it claims to be.
The value in a publication comes from what the reader, or the audience, of that publication walks away with. That may never be spoken or shared. But it’s there nonetheless.
Vanity self publishers should seek publication through other means prior to publishing their own works. Validation of one’s ability as a poet is important, not for the sake of ego but for the sake of value in poetry in general. When one poet improves his craft, the entire pantheon of poetic expression improves along with it. The tide rises all ships. This is the mystery of the value of literature. One man’s improved essence is the improved essence of all men.
The problem with vanity is that it seeks value in itself for itself. But poetic expression was not meant for that kind of valueless value. Poetic expression was meant to provide value by connecting with others through a unique mode of expression for the purpose of delivering a personal experience to the reader by way of the writer. When that happens, vanity vanishes and the poet’s audience will grow.
Poets who wish to be recognized as poets should first learn the many tools that poets use in the craft. They should practice them. They should then, after crafting a poem in which they have some pride, share it with others who are in a position to reject them. That does not mean your cat or the mailman. Although you may include the mailman by asking him to deliver your poem to a journal editor. You should put yourself in a position that promises you gain or delivers you pain. Publishing your own poetry on a blog may provide that if you are willing to accept honest feedback and accept when you get it. But the real essence of this type of gamble is in asking a gatekeeper to review your work and provide feedback or to submit it for publication and risk rejection. Then, when rejected, immediately look for ways to improve and go through the process again.
On the other hand spouting your theories and publishing them here is not vain? How is it vanity to share poems with friends but not vain to call your blog “World Class Poetry Blog?” Ridiculous. There is an enormous amount of crap poetry published in blogs but there is an equally enormous amount of crap poetics and irrational sillyness like this post as well.
I’m afraid that your conclusions beg the question, Allen. What if the poetry IS good? What if it is unique, one of your “admirable qualities”, by virtue of having NOT been influenced, edited or judged? What if it’s pure and iconic like Whitman? Who knows what you’ll find if you look?
Further, who can judge the “connectivity” and “experiential compensation” that will occur in, say, fifty or one hundred years? This argument just doesn’t hold water. I don’t think the vehicle, whether paper or electronic, is the issue. There has always been crappy poetry. Only the winds of time can separate this wheat from the chaff. It’s the cargo, me bucko, not the boat.
Better a dinghy filled to the gunwales with gold
Than a King’s fine galleon with an empty hold.
You also said:
“The problem with vanity is that it seeks value in itself for itself. But poetic expression was not meant for that kind of valueless value. Poetic expression was meant to provide value by connecting with others through a unique mode of expression for the purpose of delivering a personal experience to the reader by way of the writer. When that happens, vanity vanishes and the poet’s audience will grow.”
Speaking as a dedicated bibliophile who is just now learning to appreciate the value of the internet, I ask: what better way to “provide value by connecting with others”? After all, one has to buy a book. The internet is free.
I will spare you my list of famous self-published poets. You have probably seen it before because I have posted it here and there (Silliman, Harriet, etc.). In fact, I think I posted it on this blog once, but the point is that it’s highly possible that some poets self-publish specifically because their poetry IS good and they have no need for appraisal or validation. The opinion of one non-poet who enjoys a poem is worth more than than a gaggle of ‘professionals’ so hog-tied by scansion and classification that they can’t see the forest for the trees.
Here is something I posted at SlushPile.net over a year ago:
“In my opinion, a person is much better off self-publishing poetry if they ever want to see it in book form. If one looks at the publishers of books submitted for review to, say, Poetry Magazine, they will see scores of small presses nobody has ever heard of. What exactly is the difference between a small obscure outfit and a self-published book? Are there that many fantastic editors and poetry experts out there? I doubt it. I would guess that with so small a market and so many poets it is only good business for the big houses to disregard anything ‘unproven’. Hell, they can barely sell what they publish now. Few read poetry these days. You will also notice that when major awards like the Pulitzer or Book Critics Circle Award are given out they almost always go to the major Houses (google ‘Silliman gang of eight’ and read how the big guys dominate the poetry market).
My point is that you can submit your work for twenty years, finally get someone to publish it and then be completely ignored by the Poetry ‘establishment’ anyway or you can just publish your own work with the same result. At least you have something you can be proud of (and maybe sell).”
Gary
P.S. And I bet you’ve pissed off Bill Knott big time.
BTW, I don’t have a blog.
I knew I’d piss someone off with this one. Of course, I didn’t name names for a reason.
@ Paul A bit defensive are we? Let me see … is it vain to have ideas? Express them? Publish them? I challenge you to find where I say so.
Equally? Sure, if by “equal” you mean that there is more poetry in general published online than thoughtful poetics and that the “equality” in crap is expressed as a percentile. But I’d think that someone who spells silliness with a Y probably doesn’t mean that.
BTW, I just read some of the poems on your blog. I like.
@Gary The term “vanity publishing” is a reference to a particular industry of publishing that plays on the vanity of others who want to believe that their work has merit enough to be published. The fact that a person is self published doesn’t make their publishing efforts vain; I’m pretty sure I made that clear. But vanity is much easier expressed, and pursued, when there are fewer barriers to entry. I suppose we could discuss the vanity of the publishers who seek out the work of others to exploit for their own gain and that would be a good discussion, but it wasn’t my point here.
I purposefully do not publish my poetry here on this blog because I think there is enough self-published poetry online already. Whether any of it is any good or not is another matter. All in all, it’s a subjective judgment and we could go on and on forever about the merits of this
pointpoet vs. thatpointpoet and not get to the bottom of it. If we’re going to argue about things I’d rather argue about the ideas that give backbone to the modes of expression than the people who put a face on them. I let my readers decide for themselves who has it and who doesn’t.I anxiously pondered this before deciding to use the internet to start publishing some of my work…I think the idea of self-publishing does possess a certain trite vanity, but as you say, poetry these days has little value, which thows more barriers up in front of would-be poets because publishers are unwilling to publish anything that deviates much from what’s already the contemporary canon. I’ve not had much success with submitting to journals and competitions. It was beginning to seem like a waste of time to even try, so now some of my work will be online where they can at least potentially be seen by somebody.
I’ve looked through other poetry blogs and the quality seems to vary quite a lot; there are some good ones if you really look for them. Issues of quality aside, any creative impulse (in my opinion) is at least partially narcissistic. That’s just human nature….And every artist requires an audience
Allen,
Thanks for brining this up.
However, if there was ever the case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. It takes some chutzpah to call your blog “World Class Poetry Blog”, then posture over self-publishing.
How many of your opinion pieces & editorials have you actually published?
The question you never answer, is why your arguments don’t apply to youself?
//The reason I single out online publishing is because there are fewer barriers to entry//
Interesting, but you give *no* examples to support the idea that the “gatekeepers” have, historically, been effective arbiters of literary value. Every year, hundreds of books and chapbooks are published. Are these poems more intrinsically valuable (in a literary sense) than poetry that is self-published? You provide to evidence. You seem to think that editors & publishers aren’t subject to the same mediocrity as the writers they publish. In fact, editors and publishers have historically been, themselves, barriers to improvement. A poem vetted by a hundred mediocre editors doesn’t make it any less mediocre.
Bottom line: It’s never been the publishing industry that has determined literary value, but the marketplace – and the self-publishing made possible by the internet is the ultimate trial by marketplace! This is the way it *used* to be.
The idea that publishing determines literary value is one of the great conceits of the baby-boom generation. Since the marketplace has more or less rejected them, they have had to contrive new definitions of success – which is to be published by their peers, read by their peers, hired by their peers and lauded by their peers. Meanwhile, the average American reader hasn’t heard of a single one of them. 9 out of 10 people, off the street, will name Robert Frost as the first poet of the 20th Century. There have been hundreds of poets published, anthologized and collected during the latter half of the twentieth century, but *none* of them have inspired the wider general public. In fact, and on those terms, poets and the poetry publishing industry have proven themselves remarkable failures. Even now, the Poetry Foundation is organization symposiums to remind the general public that poetry still exists.
//Vanity destroys value in a number of ways. First, by masquerading as something of value it pretends to be the thing that it imitates.//
No more so than a mediocre editor.
//Secondly, vanity destroys because it really doesn’t bother with the task of self improvement.//
This is a remarkable assertion for which, again, you offer no evidence. Why a vanity writer would be any less interested in improving his or herself than a respectable “published” poet goes unexplained.
But it’s neither here nor there. What do *you* care if poets put their work online? What do *you* care if they think they’re successful? The equation is the same as it ever has been. If the poetry has literary value, it will be recognized by the marketplace. If it doesn’t. It won’t. Getting published is *no* guarantor of literary value. The latter half of the twentieth century has flatly proven that.
The world wide web has finally democratized the marketplace by allowing far more divergent voices to reach the public. I’m not worried. Nothing encourages innovation and improvement like the pressures of competition.
//You should put yourself in a position that promises you gain or delivers you pain.//
Really? Try putting all your poetry online. That takes far more guts than submitting it to some editor – only to have your poem read by a handful of people from which you will almost never receive feedback.
Maybe our differences reflect generational attitudes, but when I visit a site where the poet opts *not* to put his poems online – I read that as insecurity, a lack of integrity, if not cowardice.
Put your poems online, Allen. All of them. Let the marketplace decide just how talented you are – instead of a handful of self-appointed “gate-keepers”. But only do it if you want the honest opinion of your *real* readers. Trust me.
And, in the interest of full disclosure:
I have a blog. I have published most of my poetry on the blog. I also write analysis, reviews and commentary – more of the latter than the former.
More readers read my poetry than ever before. If my poetry has any value, then it will succeed in the marketplace; if not, then it won’t.
Lastly, in the spirit of discussion, I’ll be writing my own post on this subject. Interesting stuff.
And if I see one more person sucking up to Ron Silliman in the hope of a getting a link back, I am going to throw up.
Alan its so nice to see that you havent changed your wonderful supporting nature towards us mere poetry bloggers…
When I very first had contact with you …….
http://www.worldclasspoetryblog.com/blog-critique-poetry-by-stacey/02/12/2008/
you gave me the impression that you are quite pompus, and that in some ways you enjoyed putting down poetry bloggers that dared not to follow your poetry rules.
My link below (if you so choose to read it) will say enough about my opinion on this.
http://poetry-by-stacey.blogspot.com/2008/07/whatyou-dont-use-metaphors.html
I personally would prefer to read poetry that is individual, that holds my attention and has me wanting for more. I dont like reading poetry which is an example of “perfect poetry”, I like to see the imperfections so that I can make my own judgement and not follow everyone elses opinions, some times imperfections are good as this shows that the poet is infact human and not a replica of the poetry school.
We dont have to like everyones work (whether they call it poetry or not is their perogitive) but it would be rather egocentric to believe that our opinion is the only one that matters, and saying this it also applies for how they publish their work, what gives anyone the rights to say they can not self publish?
Paul, just watch the shoes please. They’re brand new.
Stacey, welcome back. I’ve mellowed.
Alan,
Somewhere behind that tough exterior, I think there is a mellow guy lurking about, and deep down I think you secretly like us non-conforming bloggers, but…you just wont admit it.
Go on Alan admit that you do, come on repeat after me…..
“I Alan Taylor, do admit that I secretly do like non-comforming bloggers”…..see Alan that was not so difficult now was it?
And you have to admit us non-conformers stand our ground and will argue our corner, which I believe you somewhat enjoy
I think most of your points in this post are out of line with the 21st century. Any reputable poet today would/should have a website/blog. If that poet published his/her work on that site, would that make it less worthy? Maybe he/she would publish there and then when a certain amount of work was accumulated, then would compile them into a “book.” In today’s world, as it was before the internet, one would submit work to journals and wait sometimes several months to see if the poem would be accepted for publication in the next issue. Now, some journal will not even accept poems self-published online and I think they do a great disservice by doing that since so many poems, even some great ones are published on-line. I agree that alot are not great or even good poems, but I also look at poetry as I do abstract art. One person might look at an abstract painting or even a non-abstract painting and think it is terrible and someone else thinks it’s a masterpiece. I do write poetry and do publish some of them on a blog and I have written some very good ones I’ve been told but I do it for the enjoyment of it. To be honest, i’ve only been seriously writing for several months and have thought of submitting to journals but have never due to reasons I have previously mentioned. And no, I won’t give the name of my blog since you have apparently already decided that self-publishing is beyond real poetry. I think you need to respect technology of today a little more.
yes, you’re right—— vanity poets are worthless . . .
i’m an example of that: all of my books of poetry can be downloaded for free
from this page:
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=2254674
…
my books cost nothing, ergo they’re worth nothing——
An aspiring poet could immediately turn pale at your thoughts about online publishing, but I do believe you make valid points.
Although, I do wonder what your thoughts are about a writer submitting work online for feedback in order to improve, whether it be posted on a blog, website, or any other online medium. You make the point that online publishing is “valueless”, yet if the author’s intention is to improve, evolve and better themselves as a writer, then doesn’t that mean the practice of online publishing can have value after all? Many means of online publishing allow for instant feedback, isn’t that a useful tool?
Skye, thanks for the question.
Clarification: Online publishing itself isn’t valueless. Vanity publishing in any form is valueless. The point here is that online publishing has taken the profit-making act of vanity publishing from print to online through free services like Blogger.com. But that doesn’t answer your question.
Let’s define what we mean by “publishing”. I do not consider posting a poem in a forum a form of publishing. On a blog, yes. As a comment on a blog, not really. Publishing, itself, has a very distinct definition that does not include seeking feedback. Traditional publishers would likely object to a poet sending them a poem merely to receive feedback on that poem. That isn’t the purpose that they serve and is really a distraction from their true mission, unless a publisher specifically states that they offer that service.
Feedback is better suited to workshops, discussion groups, and classroom settings. Any of those can take place online as well as off line. Therefore, sure, why couldn’t a poet send those poems in for feedback? Post them to an online forum and let it go. However, I have been to forums where this was done and I’ve never been satisfied with the feedback I’ve seen. There will always be the crappiest poem in the forum with half a dozen comments saying what a wonderful poem it was and how it made the reader feel so connected or some other mush-mush. I think such comments are typically made by folks who have never been in a workshop setting where real, honest feedback was given.
That said, however, I highly recommend a place like Zoetrope, where you can get real, honest feedback from other working writers.
If a writer is seeking real feedback then there are places to go for that. But in my experience, many writers online who ask for such feedback do not really want honesty. They are not looking to better themselves. They are looking for praise and will likely get it, though perhaps not from any credible sources.
So, to answer the question succinctly, yes, getting instant feedback on a poem has value – online or off line. I wish there were more of it. But I wouldn’t call it publishing.