My Thoughts On Jim's "Against Print Publication" Post

(small note: I fear I unintentionally goaded Jim into his rants today with a casual email or two, stating how much I wanted to get a) in print and b) a book out. Looking at what Jim's been writing, I feel like I helped let a demon loose. Not that I disagree with the majority of it, but I feel the need to react to this.)

I don't write this to provoke a shouting match (which is why it rambles more than it argues). Given Jim's position at Pressed Wafer and his printed positive thoughts on chapbooks, that would be too damn pointless (not to mention asshole-ish). Still, this is just too good an opportunity/excuse to vent the thoughts that were long in my head before Jim's post. Cathartic indeed, monkeyboy.

Do I think books are the be-all, end-all for a poet? That's a valid question I ask myself all the time. My answer may be generational to a degree and rooted in my academic "training" as a poet, but it's one I have learned to live with.

I truly love the online magazines I've been in and will hopefully be in. But last year was when I resolved that I have to get back in print before I go nuts.

Print, to me at least, has a greater semblance of permanence and sense of accomplishment. Websites with valuable work can and will go down in time, by the users hand or otherwise. Blogs die every day. Information can get wiped out, destroyed, tampered with, erased over time. Yes, time and the elements affect all things, including yellowing paper, but at least a book, compared to a computer, is slightly more resistant to a spilled cup of water, a cold day, a power short, and/or a tampered with website (which has happened to one or more things I and others have written for the web, though these had less to do with poetry and more to do with the political bent--still, food for thought).

Accomplishment? Well, this is partly speculation, I'll admit. Still, would websites be willing to print work from me and others if they had a page count and forced to make choices of what stays and what goes? If a magazine is done well (and there are few, I know, but they do exist), they select the best work that represents their vision. Would Aaron Tieger accept my work for his journal if it was online, or would he still reject it?

When a print publication accepts my work, I know they feel strongly about it, because they have to pay a bit more to print it than Del Ray Cross does to put it up. Of course, Cross seems to be just as good and picky an editor (he has rejected my stuff quite a bit), and the submissions could number thousands in his and Behrle's sites for all I know, making my argument more moot than it already feels. Thoughts?

Permanence? Well, books do go out of print and magazines do go under, but Jim was pondering ending can we have our ball back? a while back and still might be. I never thought the same would ever happen to the Meanie site three years ago, but there you go. Nothing I can complain about because Jim is no more obligated to keep other people's work up now then he was to first show my work in the print version of Meanie. What would happen to the poems I offer people links to? Well, I could post them on my blog (which I've done) and its site metter reading one viewer a week; but is that any better than self-publishing (which I've also done and have completely different hang ups about)? I'd like for someone else to believe in my work enough to want to print it. but that's aways off and another entry entirely.

My blog is a way to get to work out, but it's hardly a means of feedback. Neither are most websites that don't let you post your email (though doing so on my sites just leads to ads from porn sites anyway). Not having really any close friends as fellow bloggers, I'm less likely to get comments around here or any signs that the work is being read, let alone appreciated. Not that I'm yearning for friends to send praising emails. I'm an approval seeker of a different nature. It's hard not to be affected by the politics of any "scene" (as Jim can and will attest to), so I seek the insights of strangers and new friends who have no obligations to say anything nice because we sat in the same workshops together or go to the same open mics. I haven't got it though any web sites outside of AuthorsDen, which "encourages" to the point that everyone seems forced to comment, making it seem like the same politeness that seems to stop people from giving meaningful comments face to face. So, what to do?

Well, the chapbook route and featured readings have done well by me. When I read one night at my hometown last year, two complete strangers came up asking for a copy of my book. If I had handed a list of my websites on a card, would they have looked it up? Doubtful. They just would have asked for the sheets I was reading from. Even non-avid readers browse bookstores. People surf the internet for specific things. If you're not a poet, you're not looking for any web magazine with poetry. In that way, print is more likely to reach more non-poets than any web 'zine. If it's not your cup of tea, you don't tend to search it out no matter how many paths you get. But people will pick up books at random. Hey, a slim chance is better than none.

And one more thought before I let the guys with the torches and pitchforks in. Before anyone talks about the snobbishness of print journals and the perceptions of book vs. online, maybe we should look at ourselves and wonder how we must look to people who don't own computers or don't have DSL. I like the scene, but is pretty excluding just by the fact that everyone here is fortunate enough to own a computer or have access to a good one. There are many who aren't, I'm sure. I don't think we're snobbish at all, but the print journals probably don't think they are either.