Why don't we rate poetry books the same way we rate movies: honestly. I know there's a fine line between dissing a book and dissing a poet but typically the only feedback in the e-ether or elsewhere on a book of poetry is either positive reviews in literary journals (or e-journals), glowing blog gush, etc. Occasionally there's an insightful blog though about a book of poetry with a positive slant.
So, unless I'm missing something, why don't poets, bloggers, reviewers, etc. say "I didn't like this book and this is the reason why" or "I give this a 1 star out of 5." We all know books exist that just fall on their fucking faces but no body wants to be honest. To be fair, I don't think it would be prudent to be insulting just to be insulting. That's not what I'm talking about. But are reviewers, bloggers, poets being dishonest by not talking about what doesn't work?
Of course, there are some lively conversations about post-avant poets, SoQ poets, flarfists, etc., etc. which teeter on the edge of being exclusionary, overly academic, and careerist. But is the only reason for a lack of honest criticism about the good, the bad, and the ugly in poetry because of fear regarding retribution, career roadblocks, etc., etc. Or is my comparison bad since movies are, primarily, entertainment and not art, and of course poetry is art so it can't be judged in the same way. Or perhaps film is art and poets should judge poetry by similarly honest and constructive (of course) means.
I rated The Other Boleyn Girl as a 2 star out of 5 stars on Netflix because I didn't like the move. What does this say about poetry?
I've ran out of thoughts and I'm bored. Megan is going to bed early tonight which means I'm going to watch an episode of The Tudors by myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think there is one thing you must consider: Film is a mass produced medium, backed (or in the very least, released) by profiteering film studios/companies, or backed by independent profiteering investors. In short, there is almost always money to be made in film and when an object is made for profit, it is much more fit for critique. However, in poetry publishing (even for companies like tupelo, or norton) the object is almost always going to lose money. In fact, the best business model I've heard so far from independent publishers is "try to keep your losses at a minimum." I think in this vein, writing a bad review of a book, however valid or informed it may be, is like getting mad at the guys who helped you move because they scratched a few pieces of furniture...it's better it's there than not.
Film is not always a mass produced medium. There are independent films that have limited theater releases.
You are correct though, poetry publishing is not a profitable business. I agree it's better the publishers are out there than not. And its better that poets are being published more frequently than not.
I want to clarify though, I'm not talking about criticizing the publisher but being more honest in our criticism of individual books of poetry. I don't really agree with the thought that the reason for less honest criticism is due to the idea that non-profitable artistic enterprises and/or projects are more difficult to critique.
Maybe I'm just looking too much into things but it seems like there are other motivations for less critical conversations about individual books of poetry or even bodies of work. And I'm not talking about "body slamming" conversations but just more honest conversations.
By the way, did the moving men scratch your furniture due to gross negligence or was it an accident.
Post a Comment