Read on Twitter
A lot of ppl are suggesting name/shame, contact publishers, etc, so I wanna take a minute to discuss how we've dealt with these subs. The first thing is, we're learning as we go. The other is, we set out our ethos in our Issue 1 editorial; that it ought to be possible (1/10) https://twitter.com/naushsabah/status/1305264014403031041
'to open the door to readers and allow them to eavesdrop or interject in these discussions,' that we wish for a publishing culture that's more transparent and allows for 'an ongoing dialogue and negotiation with one another, our poets and our readers.'
It's been important (2/10)
It's been important (2/10)
for us to talk about these subs openly, because though we've had similar sorts of trash before, it's never been to the level or extent we're encountering now. It's significant.
Our approach has been to be direct. We've sent rejection letters. Where appropriate we've (3/10)
Our approach has been to be direct. We've sent rejection letters. Where appropriate we've (3/10)
acknowledged what the poet seems to be trying to do, said clearly that it's failing and simply reproducing racism and racist slurs, that we will take no further submissions from them, that if they want further dialogue on their poems they should seek out mentors, peers or (4/10)
pay for editorial services to get feedback. I hope that's enough to get them to reflect on their practice, intent vs effect & to self-correct. I'm sure even this mild response from us as editors will have some of them feeling victimised and censored. (5/10)
This is bad writing. It is easily critiqued & problematised. It is SHIT; it's not interesting, engaging, evocative, alive, challenging, moving, lyrical or musical. Its imagery, narrative & language are reductive, full of tropes, expected, dull, abusive, one-dimensional, etc(6/10)
It shouldn't have to be said but I just reread JC in the TLS on the POETRY furore again, so there's my word on the critical disapproval not identity disapproval. Take this as “The common pursuit of true judgment and the correction of taste”. (7/10)
That done, I wouldn't want my private correspondence or subs publicly shared for the purpose of public humiliation & ostracisation. Would you? I would want to be dealt with directly, have the opportunity to think, reflect, learn & go on. So while I want to talk about this, (8/10)
I don't want to be part of a culture that takes pleasure in gleefully publicly naming & humiliating ppl. I think there's something rotten in that impulse. If I thought these subs were targeting Suna or me individually, were threatening us, or otherwise criminal in intent, (9/10)
of course, we'd report to police. That's not the case, so I think what we've done is sufficient & appropriate. I'd like to think we can have public discourse without recourse to public shaming, that we can be direct with ppl without being destructive. (10/10)
