Jill Jones takes poetry for a walk
Don't want to put you on the spot, Jill, as you are in both. But he was a little tough about the Black Inc selection.
Not a problem, Genevieve.The way I read it was Barry making a point about the way the Black Inc anthology was compiled, which is the editor's and/or publisher's prerogative, nuthin' to do with us chickens (don't know whose decision it was in this case to not ask for submissions, tho' I assume it was the editor's).Anthologies are always difficult; you could argue the editor is always leaving something out. I'm often critical of them because of that, and have been criticised similarly when I was an editor. It must be hard to be 'representative (if, indeed, that's what an anthology should be) when essentially all you've got are the poems published in a year.I was a bit miffed that the editor of Black Inc previous year (06) and then UQP 07 chose the same poem of mine, but them's the breaks. Still, you can mount fair criticism about what is left out so long as you pony up with reasons and examples. Do you think that the case wasn't made?Thanks for stopping by.
i made a comment, but it was riddled with spelling mistakes. i guess that what my comment was about: at least partially (as an editor) you have to be 'seen' to be doing the right thing. too many abr selections, & it will 'look' bad.of course my opinion that abr isn't the venue for the greatest aus. poetry is neither here nor there.but dammit, i will have my opinions...
Sure. The 'being seen to be' is as important whenever you step into the public arena. (And as it is for reviewers as well.)Or put another way, the process is as important as the product (urgh, that sounds a bit ugly).In other words, someone's always looking at what you're doing.
Post a Comment