On
Publishing
At
the store where I work, a spiritual book and tea shop, we host events every
Thursday. A few weeks ago we hosted a
poetry reading with two Native American poets; Kim Shuck and Duane Big
Eagle. It was an inspiring evening of
poetry.
In
talking with Duane Big Eagle both before and after the reading he informed me
that he does not publish his poetry. I
know that some of his poetry has been anthologized, and he seems willing to let
that happen. But he has not made any
effort to have a collection of his poetry published even though he is fairly
well known in California and his poetry is admired.
I
have run into this before. It isn’t
common, but I have seen it with a few poets; this reluctance to publish. The quintessential example is Emily Dickinson. Bill Albert is another example that I
discovered recently. He died in the late
80’s and his haiku were published by friends who gathered his haiku into book
form. Albert himself never made any
effort to publish his haiku either in book form or by submitting them to haiku
journals. The Chinese poet Han Shan
(Cold Mountain) is another example; his poems were gathered together by others
and published after Han Shan died. If
you look for poets who were reluctant to publish you can find them here and
there.
Talking
to Duane Big Eagle gave me an occasion to think about my own mixed history with
publication. Early in my writing of
renga I submitted some of my solo renga for publication. Some were accepted by various haiku
magazines. Some were rejected, but the
rejections were always very helpful and detailed. I still have some annotations by Robert Speis
on two renga I submitted to him; he rejected them but took a lot of time
writing marginal notes which I read and learned from. I also, in the early 80’s, submitted some
haiku that were published. And I was
anthologized in a few books of haiku and renga.
And finally, when I began writing tanka I submitted some to a few
journals and they were published (Denis Garrison was particularly encouraging.)
Then
I began to pull away from submitting and pretty much stopped doing so
altogether. I don’t recall making a
conscious decision in this regard. The
shift in attitude seems to have simply happened on its own, and I went with it.
Partly,
I think, the pull away from submitting my poetry had to do with my own changing
esthetic. As I moved away from a free
verse approach to haiku and renga I found the syllabic approach more and more
rewarding. But at the same time I had
the realization that I was heading in a direction not shared by the journals
and organizations noted for publishing this kind of poetry. I began to see publication in them as, in a
sense, entering alien territory. That’s
an exaggeration, of course, but I began to feel a sense of distance and
estrangement from haiku and tanka publications and organizations.
I
began to notice what the effect is of having a syllabic haiku published in a
haiku journal dedicated to a free verse interpretation of haiku. The effect is that the syllabic haiku simply
looks like a free verse poem. This is
because the relationship to the other haiku does not mark it as
distinctive. Thus free verse haiku has a
corrosive effect on syllabics; though free verse haijin won’t see it that way.
To
see what I am getting at, if you take a collection of syllabic verse that all
share the same form, say the published volumes of the cinquain journal ‘Amaze’,
as you move from poem to poem they all share the same form. This is true even when there are variations
on the form. And the reader picks up an
underlying shared sense of rhythm and shape that all of the cinquain
share. There is a relationship between
the poems that is deeper than their surface depictions; a communal commitment
to a particular pulse. You can find this
in sonnet anthologies as well.
This
deeper dimension is lost in modern haiku anthologies because the communal
commitment to a shared syllabic shape is not present. So even if the anthology, or journal, agrees
to publish a few syllabic haiku, the effect of a communal sharing of, and
commitment to, a deeper, underlying pulse and rhythm, is lost. If you read a haiku collection by Edith
Shiffert, to pick just one example, the shared pulse acts as a stream like
current carrying you from haiku to haiku.
But if you take a single haiku from her collection, and then place it in
an anthology of free verse haiku, that current that carries the reader from
haiku to haiku is simply not there. I
began to feel the absence of this pulse, this current, as a loss of meaning.
These
thoughts are in hindsight. At the time I
just felt less and less at home in the free verse haiku and tanka
journals. Tanka journals in particular
struck me as simply collections of free verse poetry with no discernible
connection to the actual history of tanka as formal verse. This has developed into a feeling that
syllabic haiku (and other syllabic forms that free verse poets have taken a
liking to) needs its own space and journals; because when a syllabic haiku is
placed in a collection of other syllabic haiku the relationship between the
haiku, the shared shape/pulse/rhythm emerges with clarity. And the fact that this sharing is a communal
commitment, and not just an accident (which is what it seems like in a free
verse haiku context), and the centrality of that communal commitment, becomes
clear. The result is that the reader
senses that the form itself is meaningful, which is not clear when a syllabic
haiku is surrounded by free verse haiku.
There
is another aspect about poetry journals that makes some poets reluctant to
participate; and that is that they are ephemeral. And most of them have a very tiny
readership. And this readership is often
scattered geographically so that you don’t really get a sense of community from
their presence in the pages of a journal.
For some, it is unsatisfying. I
even wrote a sonnet about exactly that feeling.
Eventually,
I would access print-on-demand technology, and this made it possible for me to
publish my work in a way that I find satisfying. I think this is true for many poets
today. The gate to publication is no
longer controlled by those who have a particular esthetic commitment; in the
case of haiku, publication is no longer controlled by official haiku
organizations that have an esthetic commitment to a free verse
interpretation. This kind of access has
tipped the balance away from such organizations and allowed poets to put
forward their poetry even if that poetry is based on an understanding out of
sync with the official gatekeepers. I
think that is a very good thing.