quote:

---

-- should QLRS publish a poem by LKY that comes its way if it weren't Pushcart quality? I doubt it'd be blithely dropped without due consideration of its implications as a document.

---

quote:

---

Some stuff you keep because it's art,
Some stuff you take because it's news.
I'm not saying publish what is merely news, but I am saying it's worth publishing what isn't purely art.

---

quote:

---

-- we've had a good go at covering the ground.

---

quote:

---

-- if we picked only A+ material we'd run out of material for a regular journal. Surely, that's what HM is saying when he refers to a floating level of quality and the reality that half of his stock aren't instant "yes"es. And that's QLRS. The other pubs fare worse.

---

quote:

---

-- well, as it is in your view there are some (< A+) pieces in QLRS this issue that you'd have thrown out...and I've already stated that some of them I feel are worth the documentary value at the least.

---

quote:

---

-- Not quite yet. You're assuming that the creators of fine ficton, verse, criticism etc. are also equally competent in generating forums/publications to support their breed of work. That's only partly true, surely.

---

quote:

---

--- We're talking about practitioners including HM, and Sor Fern the erstwhile books editor of ST LIFE! -- who HAVE done what they can to create a space for it and yet see the paucity of criticism/critical space as an issue.

---

quote:

---

I'd question the implication of your statements -- that if a work doesn't get published SOMEHOW = it must be crap.

---

quote:

---

That said, I do think there is room for more stringent/critical reviews, and that's where your "filters" might properly be applied.

By all means, have a critical go at the work you feel is substandard in some way, but at least the work is out there for others to consider.

---

quote:

---

-- "meaty; prompting thought". What else did you think?

---

quote:

---

-- It's a matter of position in the market, and the pt is pursuant to your claim that venues like PBB provide "fair-fit" markets for QLRS rejects. Some of these "table scraps" other publications will consider fair-fit -- that's true and that's perfectly fine.

But if that is indeed the market perception, and it is not going to get anything BUT table scraps in its inbox, then there is no point operating it as a separate publication.

---

quote:

---

If a writer had a poem he/she considered of Paris Review quality would he/she submit it to Paris Review 1st or to QLRS? And would QLRS want to be in the position of ONLY receiving whatever Paris Review does not (for whatever reason) want and worse, being seen permanently as strictly 2nd-choice? I think not.

---

quote:

---

Instead, publications like QLRS have value regardless of its relative int'l literary standing to Paris Review, precisely because it (also) has access to and carries quality material that isn't necessarily available to PR (work, say, of direct relevance to Singapore)

---

quote:

---

Curiously, how would Metastatic play this?

---

quote:

---

Your response has nothing to do with the point it's addressing: that 'sure, if it's good enough to be publishable' is a non sequitur, as a poem by Singapore's first openly gay MP would be of great historical interest whether or not it's good.

---

quote:

---

Some stuff you keep because it's art,
Some stuff you take because it's news.
I'm not saying publish what is merely news, but I am saying it's worth publishing what isn't purely art.

Fair enough. I must ask, though, what in QLRS would you say is an example of this?

---

quote:

---

-- we've had a good go at covering the ground.

---

quote:

---

Thank you for the clarification. Okay:

1) That depends on how many pieces you need each issue of the journal to contain, surely.

2) 50% of each issue's acceptances is, I think, a pretty good instant-yes percentage for a journal that doesn't pay, stockpile or solicit.

---

quote:

---

3) Not sure if it's true that the other publications fare worse. Cyril Wong effectively claims to take only instant-yeses ('this journal is updated only when a poet arrives in my inbox with work that blows me away').

---

quote:

---

-- Not quite yet. You're assuming that the creators of fine ficton, verse, criticism etc. are also equally competent in generating forums/publications to support their breed of work. That's only partly true, surely.

No particular competency is needed. At its simplest, go to Blogger.com --> create blog --> post review on blog --> publicise blog. There you go.

Slightly more complicated: --> register a domain --> put up a website --> invite people to send you work --> put up work people send you that you like. Voila! PBB is born.

This is not to suggest that maintaining an ezine is necessarily easy--if it were so, the Whatnot wouldn't be only just gearing up for issue two more than a year after issue one--but its basic challenges require perseverance, not [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=competence&r=67]competence[/url]. And the mere starting of an ezine requires neither.

---

quote:

---

My larger point still stands: publishing bad criticism does nothing to help the state of criticism in Singapore. Quite the opposite.

---

quote:

---

The real implication of my statements is that if a work doesn't get published somehow, it must be crap AND/OR its creator doesn't care enough to see it through to publication. Which attitude, incidentally, he has every right to have.

---

quote:

---

That said, I do think there is room for more stringent/critical reviews, and that's where your "filters" might properly be applied.

By all means, have a critical go at the work you feel is substandard in some way, but at least the work is out there for others to consider.

---

quote:

---

By that reasoning, Alvin, why do you not publish every single piece that comes your way? Even if you think a poem has no redeeming qualities at all, shouldn't you still put it out there for others to consider?

---

quote:

---

-- "meaty; prompting thought". What else did you think?

---

quote:

---

B"ut if that is indeed the market perception, and it is not going to get anything BUT table scraps in its inbox, then there is no point operating it as a separate publication."

Second paragraph does not follow from the first. Why is there no point in publishing a journal composed of the stuff editor X didn't like, but that you do? You talk about subjectivity but you don't walk the talk.

---

quote:

---

True (though I'd think it's more a case of local-centric work not having access to TPR than TPR not having access to local-centric work), but do you mean to say that QLRS would lose its value if TPR started to publish Singapore writing (or more local writing, if it's done so in the past)?

---

quote:

---

-- if the poem had something to do with the fact that he is Singapore's first openly gay MP, then SURE, it's of historical interest from a literary POV.

---

quote:

---

How "great" depends on how effective/confrontational/confessional etc etc. the poem is.

---

quote:

---

-- Casually, I'd say Cyril's THE DIFFICULTY - it's "newsworthy" coz he's never tried a strict form before.

---

quote:

---

-- yes, it's quite good really, so I'd not really be quite so hung up about their floating quality (which was what started off this debate) because it certainly has not lost its credibility as the premiere Singapore journal despite it.

---

quote:

---

I feel the editors do what they have to to produce a more-than-decent issue every quarter of a reasonably high standard. To insist on instant-yes only is perhaps too much of a burden for a labour-of-love, non-stockpiled, non-solicited, volunteer journal. Kudos to them. . . .

---

quote:

---

-- Cyril solicits work (esp pieces he likes) and has no obligation to produce regular issues, so that's rather a different paradigm, really. It's an interesting model for producing a quality publication tho -- much more curating than editing.

---

quote:

---

Easy for the tech savvy, but even in our generation (ok, mine) there are those who aren't up to it. Yes, even blogging. Go ask the writers over 35.

---

quote:

---

Which is why PBB was the 1st literary/poetry website in Singapore back in '95 / '96. I just haven't pushed it much since then. My bad. Doesn't mean it's easy to run a publication that people read, as you'd know.

---

quote:

---

-- Can I ask a counter-qn -- any reason why WhatNot doesn't plan to publish (good) reviews?

---

quote:

---

Of course I'd rather have a cracking good review, but better a review that covers some ground (and perhaps provokes further critique) than not.

---

quote:

---

-- so there's in your estimation no such thing as a creator/author of quality who doesn't happen to have connections to the necessary resources to get published seriously? The internet has made it easier but still, that's rather blithe....

---

quote:

---

-- I'm actually thinking of letting the PBB go that way (with a comments engine), and then hiving off the editor's pick in a separate section. That way I separate editorial endorsement from the chance for people to exercise their impulses (which they do anyway by hijacking my YOUR SAY section...) but it's all there.

---

quote:

---

-- as for critical reviews -- honestly, right now, I'd be happy to publish anything of decent length and grammar that reviews a recent local work, its that dry.

---

quote:

---

--- "meaty; having substance and prompting thought; "a meaty discussion" (www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn)

---

quote:

---

In short, I don't see it as a matter of being hypocritical about QLRS rejects by deeming them of a lower quality (the so-called subjectivity issue). But I want PBB to help increase the total catchment area of literary work. Doesn't work if it's a trickle down system ALONE.

hope this is clear enough?

---

quote:

---

-- if TPR were to start being dominated by the sort of Singapore writing QLRS has a specialisation and stake in, then yes, I'd say QLRS might want to rethink its editorial strategy. Or worse, if people gave it all to TPR

---

quote:

---

better yet if TPR DOESN'T do so because it defers to QLRS as the expert forum for Singaporean literature. QLRS does have a stake in "S" as it has in "L" after all.

---

quote:

---

FREE VERSE POET STUNS WORLD BY WRITING SESTINA; DETAILS AT 10

---

quote:

---

You also make a habit of avoiding my points. This particular point being: given that QLRS manages a 1:1 instant-yes vs. kinda-maybe ratio as it is, you exaggerate when you claim that it's impossible to fill a regular journal without resorting to work the editor finds (to use your terminology) less than A+. It is difficult. It is not impossible.

---

quote:

---

Nevertheless [SOFTBLOW] is part of the set 'other publications', which you claimed 'fare worse' than QLRS vis a vis proportion of acceptances that are instant-yeses.

It's not such a drastically different paradigm from your own, anyway. Cyril solicits, you (I gather) don't. What else?

---

quote:

---

:Easy for the tech savvy, but even in our generation (ok, mine) there are those who aren't up to it. Yes, even blogging. Go ask the writers over 35.

Do you mean aspiring writers or established ones?

---

quote:

---

I acknowledge that it isn't easy in the very post you're quoting from. My argument is that it requires perseverance and genuine interest, not expertise per se.

---

quote:

---

I'm considering a separate journal just for reviews, though, because I do think the state of criticism here is weak. I haven't solidified anything yet, though.

---

quote:

---

I do not share this view. Better to leave the ground uncovered than to cover it ineptly. A blank piece of paper is better than a map that's 10% crayon scrawls and 90% Here There Be Monsters.

---

quote:

---

-- so there's in your estimation no such thing as a creator/author of quality who doesn't happen to have connections to the necessary resources to get published seriously? The internet has made it easier but still, that's rather blithe....

What is this 'published seriously' of which you speak?

---

quote:

---

That's sensible. My view, though, is that publication is endorsement, and so your approach is not for me.

---

quote:

---

:-- as for critical reviews -- honestly, right now, I'd be happy to publish anything of decent length and grammar that reviews a recent local work, its that dry.

Why don't you write them yourself? Is it a matter of limited time? You already have the venue.

---

quote:

---

For that matter, if you'd be happy to publish such reviews, perhaps you should say so on PBB. As it is there are *no* submissions guidelines at all.

---

quote:

---

All right. Nevertheless, the sense in which you were using the word was by no means self-evident enough to do without a definition. Just for your future reference.

---

quote:

---

Yes, it is. Now your position makes a sort of sense. Personally, though, 'increas[ing] the total catchment area of literary work' would be low on my list of priorities. I'm curious: why, exactly, do you think this is so important? And how do you think PBB accomplishes this?

---

quote:

---

What sort of Singapore writing does QLRS have a specialisation and a stake in? Beyond 'the good sort', I don't believe any such thing exists.

---

quote:

---

-- well, does it make an explicit, articulate and newsworthy point about being Singapore’s 1st openly gay MP-poet? If not, there’s really nothing to differentiate it from any other poem by any other non-openly gap non-MP poet.

---

quote:

---

an example might be LEE TZU PHENG's "MY COUNTRY, MY PEOPLE". Not the best of poems in the last century, yet controversial in its time, banned, repackaged, misappropriated etc. Says a lot about the culture and circumstances from which it arose and within which it operated. ie of "historical" interest, in one sense.

---

quote:

---

-- CRITIC SEES DIFFICULTY IN POET’S NEW OEUVRE, URGES CAUTION.

---

quote:

---

-- You say “difficult”. I say “too difficult” (at least for now). We differ over our assessment of the marginal cost vs marginal benefit of doing what you suggest. Is there any way to measure this empirically?

---

quote:

---

-- Softblow essentially operates a closed tender system.

---

quote:

---

If you solicit suitable work you’re going to have 100% “instant yes”es by default.

---

quote:

---

-- Both, of course. Might be an interesting research project.

---

quote:

---

-- naturally, expertise is also a function of perseverance and genuine interest. But is it fair to expect everyone to invest that sort of time/effort in building as well as managing and using the infrastructure? It’s the whole entrepreneurship thing again...

---

quote:

---

My sense is that, in real life, for better or worse, many writers can’t/won’t and are more likely to rely on existing channels like QLRS or Whatnot than, say, pick up HTML . Doesn’t mean their writing is crap. I think those of us for whom the entry barriers are lower provide a service that helps bridge a genuine gap.

---

quote:

---

-- Well I have to disagree. Better a candle in the dark if I can’t have the floodlights.

---

quote:

---

-- published in a fashion/medium in which the content has a reasonable probability in typical circumstances to encounter a suitable audience. ie. get read & get reviewed by an audience of more than immediate acquaintances.

---

quote:

---

-- I used to (and still try to) for ST, QLRS etc etc. Time is always a problem with us day-jobbers, strangely.

---

quote:

---

There’s another factor. When you have the same few people reviewing everyone else (or worse, poets reviewing each other), the scene starts losing a certain objectivity. New perspectives (and outside perspectives) are always good.

---

quote:

---

-- it’s left deliberately casual. Don’t need another QLRS / WHATNOT / SOFTBLOW-like mission statement. Mebbe that’s an antiquated attitude on my part tho.

---

quote:

---

Well I come from a pre-internet generation where the ability to get published was in the hands of a certain mafia. I feel we’re still catching up on this -- the attitude of many is still one of keeping their work to themselves. What results is the impression in certain strata of the establishment that not much is being produced (and therefore even less of quality) culturally in Singapore. It becomes a vicious circle --> no writing (present) = no basis for support = no writing (future). But it’s a more complicated issue that I won’t elaborate here. Perhaps another time. Suffice to say it’s a role I value.

---

quote:

---

PBB catches the attention of some folks who’ve never otherwise encountered writing in/from/about Singapore, and who don’t know about QLRS or whatever. So each is helping in its own way and from its own direction to expand knowledge about Singapore’s cultural/literary life (and I’d like to think it’s just credible enough to not be a scam in terms of quality of work present). Again, I personally value that sort of contribution.

---

quote:

---

the same sort of stake you say whatnot does NOT have.

---

quote:

---

Not a faux pas at all. The only statement that can be made with any certainty about any work that has been rejected is that one editor with one particular set of tastes (and, some might add, standards) has not found it to his/her liking. There's no reason at all why the writer should not send the piece in question in to another journal.

---

quote:

---

I have done, once or twice, in the first volume, but generally this team doesn't present me with that problem. I may not necessarily agree with the respective editors' choices, but I do respect these choices.

---

quote:

---

If you're meaning to suggest that the act of soliciting doesn't change much, then I must disagree. Soliciting changes everything about a journal: to degrees varying with the proportion of works solicited to works otherwise received, soliciting changes the selection dynamic, it affects aesthetic objectivity, it restricts the opportunity offering, it makes of the editor much more of a cultural commissar...

---

quote:

---

Don't just consider...

---

quote:

---

I expect you will find it interesting when Cyril Wong does his first poem written using only lines from Aerosmith songs, his first poem in Dutch and his first poem written whilst hang-gliding. I would not, however, want to see them included in QLRS on the basis of their unusual provenance.

---

quote:

---

'Too difficult to be worthwhile' is a value-judgement, and that's one thing; 'too difficult to be possible' is a measurable claim, and is quite another. I thought you meant the latter. If all you mean is the former, fair enough--it's for every editor to decide what's worth the bother and what's not.

---

quote:

---

If you solicit suitable work you’re going to have 100% “instant yes”es by default.

---

quote:

---

-- Both, of course. Might be an interesting research project.

---

quote:

---

As a one-time (probably soon-to-relapse) blogger myself, though, I have to say I can't think of many big-shot bloggers under thirty (though my memory may be inflating blogger age based on their clout--who knows?). I don't think blogging is as closed to 'your generation' as you make out. At its most simple (Blogger.com), it really is pretty simple.

---

quote:

---

I still feel, though, that we shouldn't need to feel an obligation to cater to absolutely everyone who wants their work to see print (so to speak).

---

quote:

---

Perhaps what we ought to be encouraging is the foundation of new zines! There are resources for aspiring writers, but what about aspiring editors?

---

quote:

---

Ah well. Metaphors--choose your poison.

---

quote:

---

Surely only a carefully written review would take much time to write. I'm sure you could dash off a careless one in minutes--and better the candle than nothing, no?

---

quote:

---

I'm not talking mission statements; I'm talking submissions guidelines. At its most basic, something like, PBB is open to poetry and reviews of poetry. Please send submissions to editor@poetrybillboard.com.

---

quote:

---

the same sort of stake you say whatnot does NOT have.

---

quote:

---

you asked "What makes you say this?"

Isn't it quite quickly evident?

---

quote:

---

Isn't it quite quickly evident? For any given amount of journal space, the more an editor sources from his/her own network, the less opportunity there is for a new writer coming from out of the ether.

---

quote:

---

Some of the biggies, e.g. Poetry Review (though the scuttlebutt has it more so in the past than now), do this, even though admittedly it's hard to tell to what extent since their normal submission piles already have brand name poets. Besides, if you've asked Seamus Heaney for a poem (say), and he's actually given you one, would you write back to say, I'm sorry, ol' chap, but this isn't awfully good is it?

---

quote:

---

Moreover, an editor who solicits is likely to advance more aggressive aesthetic agendas than if he/she were merely to simmer what comes in over the transom.

---

quote:

---

Consider the extreme: a journal that only solicits (e.g. Jacket, as far as poetry is concerned). Wouldn't my points be true in such a case?

---

quote:

---

Oh, it was definitely of historical interest at the time it was published (more so than now in a sense).

Historical (interest) : clearly arising from, indicative of, at odds with, or providing particular insight into the cultural, social, political, chronological circumstances in which a particular phenomenon originated and/or took place. Level of interest then being the extent to which this is evident/provides special insight/of unique value to the informed observer (eg a historian).

---

quote:

---

. . . the sestina is such a clearly recognisable formal structure (in the way that an Aerosmith-inspired free-verse poem might not be.) What is it about the free-verse confessional poet that was draw to this particularly involved strict verse form, in a literary scene where few writers of his generation care for traditional forms other than perhaps the sonnet? How does it stack up (to his free-verse work and to other sestinas esp those written in Singapore)?

Point being, it raises questions that perhaps the publication in question cares to pose to readers, even if not all readers care to answer them.

---

quote:

---

“Too difficult to be possible” applies to too few things to be worth talking about in an unqualified manner. “Too difficult to be viable” is still measurable given the right specified parameters, and HM has already mentioned sustainability as a relevant factor. Of course, it may not be worthwhile to conduct the exercise of measurement...

---

quote:

---

I’ll leave HM to tackle this since he’s started.

---

quote:

---

Simple for you, mebbe. S’poreans over 30 can be surprisingly tech-duh esp compared with their overseas counterparts. I mean, I still get strange looks for being a writer with a tech job.

I don’t think blogging quite caught on with us in the same way it has for the 20s and teens. PLUS, Blogger is a relatively recent innovation, and I’m talking about people who write in longhand because they never quite got used to MS Word or the Internet. And believe me, I’ve set up enough laptops and internet connections (“here’s how you check your email”) for established writers from all over the world to know that tech-literacy is not in the basic job description.

---

quote:

---

and this is where I come in with a sales pitch for LEMMINGS -- the literary content management system that powers QLRS --- Literary Editorial Management Made INGeniously Simple! Bad joke, good system (really)

---

quote:

---

not really -- in this case, our mutual choice of metaphors is indicative.

You mention “maps” -- implying that there is an openly travesible territory in which it is possible and even desirable to explore on your own than to rely on a badly put-together guide that could get you lost.

I mention light and darkness, implying of course that the subject of our discourse is pretty much impenetrable to the uniniated or ill-equipped -- perhaps dangerously so. In which case it’s better to have some sort of tool in hand, however modest, to get you started rather than nothing at all.

---

quote:

---

I could. I don’t want to.

---

quote:

---

Besides, it takes time just to read the primary text.

---

quote:

---

That one got lah.

---

quote:

---

Come on, read the mission statement : “QLRS (in full, the Quarterly Literary Review Singapore) is the Internet literary journal of Singapore. Our mission is to promote the literary arts in Singapore, to stimulate the feedback mechanisms in the literary scene, and to develop Singaporean writers to international standards.”
-- it does have a clear stake in developing the literary arts IN SINGAPORE (vs say New Mexico or like whatnot, being a locale-free journal). Therefore it can, for instance, “justify including reviews of local books a large proportion of readers may not have any particular stake in and probably aren't even able to buy in store.”

---