I would ask that you try and calm down and stop trying to put words into my mouth. I can tell you this, the words I put into my OWN mouth are far better than any you could possibly dream of putting in mine, so cool your jets.

What Anna said or didn’t say didn’t “demolish” anything. I am sorry if you don’t appreciate other people’s views. So we should drop t because it doesn’t fit into what you think?

That’s pretty big of you.

Keep up the good work.

Am I still suspect?

Is that rhetorical?

If not my answer would be as follows: I am always suspect of witers/poets who run their own magazines and publish their friends. The same applies for those who publish their own books or the books of their friends. For the reasons stated previously — it gives writers/potes a false sense of accomplishment and it is viewed with a somewhat jaundice eye by many editors (or at least those I’ve spoken with.)

Is it universal?

Perhaps not.

Does it apply directy to you?

Perhaps not.

The relationship between your enrollment in an MFA program and your chapbook escapes me since to be perfectly honest without somehow insulting to you, I really don’t follow your career that closely. I have no reason to. This is the first I ever even heard of you.

I know far more Bennington grads with MFAs than you can shake a stick at. Hell, in my neck of the woods we’re falling over MFA and Ph.D.’s.

Nipple seems to be a poetic buzz word for most. I really haven’t done any lengthy primary research on the subject, but a quick look at some of the Bennington inspired poems I have seen leads me to believe that nipple forms a fairly fundamental aspect for many poems, in a variety of capacities.

Of course that’s been my experience. Others might have different experiences.One size doesn’t fit all. But I bet there is a “The Significance of the Nipple in Poetry” seminar at Bennington. Perhaps it is simply over enrolled.

I just fail to see any evidence that that’s what happened in this case, and Anna has, I think, in a few short comments, demolished the insinuation. I tend to regard, say, claims by New York circuit poets to have “eighteen books” with skepticism (such are generally self-published and of poor quality), here, the case is clearly one of a poet with some credentials going with a local publisher to produce a chapbook to circulate on a modest scale until a full-lengther comes out. I got no whiff of vanity press or local circle-jerk, which the comments from both the publisher and the author have confirmed.

(And to take it a step further, even publishers of full-length collections have been known to bring out their own collections on their own imprints. In Ireland, Peter Fallon runs Gallery Press, his publisher. Dermot Bolger was published by Raven Arts in his early years, a press he founded. Jessie Lendennie’s books are with her own Salmon Poetry. Seamus Cashman had at least one book with Wolfhound Press, which he ran. These are–or in some cases were–AMONG THE LEADING POETRY PUBLISHERS IN IRELAND. This is not apropos in Anna’s case, as she holds no position with her publisher other than having two manuscripts accepted, but it is to say that EVEN WERE SOME OF YOUR INSINUATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS TRUE, it would not necessarily detract from either the chapbook’s literary merit or the press itself.)

So can we drop it?

Perhaps better measures of my literary self-worth:

Currently a finalist (1 of 10) in the ABZ Press First Book Award. I know no one involved with this press or judging process.

Two time finalist in the Howard Nemerov Sonnet Contest

Finalist in the 2007 Willis Barnstone Translation Award

Published by the Harvard Review, the Atlanta Review, Rattle, the Evansville review, Measure, Light Quarterly and the Formalist, among many others.

Are you still ’suspect’ (sic) of my writing credits?

Cheers,

Anna

PS Swimming was published in March 2006. As I did not begin my MFA until January 2006, it should be clear to you that the content of this chapbook is not the product of my time at Bennington, where, I regret to have to tell you, there are no nipple seminars.

Personally, I don’t see why a small publisher of chapbooks or anything else shouldn’t publish whoever they want to. They can publish themselves or their friends or people in their writing groups — I don’t see why not. Plenty of people do.

In the big tent of poetry there are hundreds of variations of this, ranging from poetry groups publishing each other in chapbooks or starting small magazines to publish themselves and their friends. All of those sorts of endeavors happen all the time. I’ve seen situations where a poet will publish someone in the magazine they’ve started so that the other poet will publish them in their magazine. I suppose it is a way of getting publication credits on your bio.

And I’ve seen poetry groups with as few as four people in it ultimately start a small press and then publish half of their group’s membership.

Once again, I think all that falls under the purview of those involved, either the members of the group or the person starting the magazine or press. Besides, who’s there to stop them? It’s not like they are governed by any universal mission statement or publishing governing tenet ascribed to by some membership, much like reputable literary agents usually have in place. So who’s to stop them?

Personally, I have long held the belief that this process is not healthy — once again, simply my opinion — since it really doesn’t give the poet/writer a good measure of their literary self-worth (in fact it might just give them an inflated view of their literary self-worth) which may detract from their efforts to become a better poet/writer.

In a larger, more important arena, I think there is a tendency for certain poets/writers (and in many instances magazine and journal editors) to become suspect of a person’s writing credits when it somehow reflects publication within only a very small circle of influence, whether it‘s a group of poets publishing themselves in a magazine they created or a group of poets publishing their own works in book or chapbook form.

After a while, I think that circle can become a rut.

Once again in an effort to head of cries of foul, what and where this writer publishes her work or whether she publishes others work is not any of my concern. It’s simply an observation based on my experiences in this very subjective genre.

I think overall my personal stance on this is reflected in the adage that, “everyone wants to get to heaven but nobody wants to die.”

Sometimes we all want to get a book published without really getting a book published.

Thanks for the note. I just didn’t want to say things in utter ignorance of any actual relationships–or lack thereof. And having said that, in particular locales of the poetry world, you do get to know people. Sometimes quite well–but that does not mean that publishing them is not on the basis of literary merit. Any comments I made above were purely general.

As for my comments on production values, as is the case with any review, take it for what it’s worth, just as Anna will, no doubt, take my comments on the poems themselves.

Look, if the reader doesn’t like the voice of the reviewer then the person being reviewed may as well kiss it goodbye. Exactly what is your point to the review– to promote the author or to promote yourself as some sort of reviewer? If your point is to get people to buy and read people’s work then let me tell you your argumentative behavior defeats its purpose. I sure won’t be buying the chapbook, self–published or otherwise, based on your review as it’s written. There’s not enough about her and too much about you. You jus didn’t seem to do your homework on this one. I have to go looking for where to buy it?m Bad form. She’s been widely published? Where? You haven’t anticipated a single question the reader might be asking nor habe you answerede them and we are still talking about your writing NOT hers. Once againt that has got to tell you something. You don’t have to accept that but since you are touting your goal as a way of enlightening people to a variety of under-appreciated writers, I suggest you consider the reader first and yourself last.