13 sept. 2005

Why is it that I want to resist all pretentiousness, all unnecessary verbiage, in critical response? Maybe because I am an academic and am reacting against my own ambience. I already own this pretentious language, I don't need to acquire it for professional legitimacy, so I can afford to run away from it. Someone else looking at it from the outside in might see at as an object of desire, a way of being taken more seriously perhaps.

I hate handwringing and apologizing for my critical reactions. My reactions are my own. I own them. I don't need to examine their provenance or situate myself in an anguished or supercomplicated way.


I got rejected from a few SoQ Venues recently, like the New England Review. My experiment was to see whether I had crossover appeal. Apparently I don't. But more importantly, I am not sure I have appeal even within the anti-SoQ camp. That is, I have also been rejected by journals where I might fit in stylistically quite well. The difference is between batting .000 in the SoQ and about .400 in the non SoQ. I am Ted Williams against left-handed pitchers but hitless against righties.

4 comentarios:

C. Dale dijo...

Some pitchers are ambidextrous.

Jonathan dijo...

There are switch-hitters, but no switch-pitchers that I am aware of.

Jess dijo...

Greg Harris switch-pitched an inning. He is the only pitcher to do that post 1900, I believe.


Whimsy dijo...

Keep submitting, Jonathan. I've had award-winning poems rejected 20 times. I've had publications reject me and then accept a poem with a title change. I've had major publications that sent me both a rejection and acceptance letter. Barrow Street even published me once, adding the note that they figured publishing a poem of mine would stem the tide of my relentless submission.