Since December, the editorial staff of Foothill has been hammering away at the practical aspects of dreaming up, instituting, and running a literary journal. Funding? Check – sort of. Institutional support – done. Selection and implementation of a competent editorial staff? Absolutely. The project on the whole has been, and I confidently speak for the whole group here, a great joy. As graduate students ourselves, it is easy to forget about the world of letters outside of the academy, so to be a part of a project that brings the work of students in the fine arts to the larger literary world is more than a pleasure: it has been exhilarating.
As a project-oriented, business-minded individual, I find the nuts and bolts of publishing and publicity, budgets and grant proposals exciting. The formation of this journal thus far not ceased to be stimulating, however it reached transcendent levels at our last meeting, during which the editorial board agreed it was time to begin defining what we each look for in a poem; what makes a poem speak; what moves each of us individually; what, to each of us, represents a certain paradigm and why.
Early on, we decided to approach our submissions with an open mind. Aside from quality, we prefer no form to another, and are as open to experimental poetry as we are to traditional. With this in mind, below is the content of our round table poetry reading. Each round of reading was followed by the discussion of one item of business, snippets of which are included (if only for the reader’s amusement).
Member in attendance: Kevin Riel, Rachel Tie, Scott Kneece, Jordan Perry, Tyler Reebe. Beverages in attendance: Laphroaig, Black Swan Shiraz, Spater, Hairy Eyeball.
Round one:
“Second Coming,” Yeats (Tyler)
“First Hour,” Sharon Olds (Rachel) I selected this poem for a number of reasons, but if I had to list only one, it would be for the line “I lay/there like a god.”
“Morningsong,” Plath (Jordan)
“The Drunk in the Furnace,” W.S. Merwin (Scott)
On discussing the tone of the blog:
Tyler: It is an opportunity to be honest, but this isn’t amateur hour. Say what you will, but do it artfully.
Jordan: So no Brown Betty recipes?
Tyler: If it’s artful…
Round Two:
“A Walk in Victoria’s Secret,” Kate Daniels (Kevin) We all had a very powerful reaction to this poem. Personally, I was struck by the way the poet navigated her way through the sometimes gritty life of the breast, utilizing humor and tenderness where necessary, without ever resorting to bawdiness.
“Day Begins at Governor’s Square Mall,” Leon Stokesbury (Jordan)
“China,” Bob Perelman (Rachel)
“Meditation at Lagunitas,” Robert Hass (Scott)
“One for the Shoeshine Man,” Charles Bukowski (Tyler)
On discussing our interview with poet B.H. Fairchild:
Our main hope is to have him expound on the nature of poetry; what is its project? What practical advice can he give to young writers? Is an MFA necessary? What is the current state of poetry? How has your life and your formative experiences shaped your own work? (To read the interview in full, click here: ________)
Round three:
“To a Poor Old Woman,” William Carlos Williams (Rachel) Several editors noted how this poem is the best use of enjambment…ever. After which, a short silence passed and Kevin mentions, “…she sure likes plums…”
“Stolen Child,” Yeats (Jordan)
“Litany,” Billy Collins (Scott) We discussed how difficult it is to use humor in poetry, and how the distinction between useful humor and distracting humor is whether it serves as a window into something deeper, or as a wall, cutting the reader off from something essential.
Tyler’s last poem, whose title and author elude this blogger, was a somewhat political poem about Arizona. We understand that politics and ideology are common themes in poetry, and wanted to discuss our view on this as submissions begin to roll in. We decided that there is certainly a place for these things in poetry, but that in the face of ideological certainty, imagination can be stalled. Therefore, as long as there is craft, we shy away from nothing.
