Here are some things I would like to see more of in the Substack-centric poetry universe:
—No more than one picture per poem. Really, I would prefer no pictures at all but I get it, we live on the wrong side of the Gutenberg parenthesis for us to fully embrace text-only; besides, Substack practically demands some sort of thumbnail image per post.
—Printer-friendly poems. I really don't know what this would look like. Substack dev team: can you add a "print this page" button?
—Poems in chunks. Reading poems as they get published is very good, but in our hyperconnected and distraction-prone world it is difficult to give a poem the attention it deserves online. What if poets were to publish several poems at once, rather than one at a time? I realize the lack of focus is a reader problem but we writers can do what we can to help, can't we?
—Chapbook giveaways. This is really the previous two points mingled into one. A downloadable chapbook (Substack already allows PDF embeds) or a link to something on Lulu would be nice for poets who have taken the time to collect and format some of their work.
—More silly poems. It seems to me that the tone on Substack is much more "quiet contemplation" than "let's have jolly ol' time"—why is this? Humorous poems might be just the thing to get people more interested in poetry anyway. Personally, I'm tired of hearing what poets thought about while they were out doing the weeds in the garden or looking at the sunset or whatever. I want more pronouncements on the big themes but given in a silly vein, such as this anonymous gem: https://thebardonthehill.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/art-anonymous/
—More reading aloud. This is beginning to happen more often, so that's good.
Hopefully these aren't too cantankerous and are actually helpful suggestions. Looking forward to reading the completed manifesto—and also the Scarriet overview.
“Or, if I were a few drinks in, I could well have berated them, insisting that poetry is not something you “get” like Latin verb conjugation, it was something you caught, like chlamydia.”
Is “chlamydia” poetic? I would have thought “the clap” much better!
Shakespeare is certainly a poet to be both heard and seen (it's what makes his plays indispensable). At a time in high school when our theatre company was staging "Much Ado" and the Scottish play in successive years, we watched a film for each one as part of the rehearsal process: the Joss Whedon "Much Ado About Nothing" (charming but insubstantial) and the Sir Patrick Stewart version of "Macbeth" (still haunting, nearly nine years later). The Stewart film was an adaptation of his West End run of the play, something it shares with the David Tennant-led version of "Hamlet" I also enjoyed watching as a film.
(There are many more thoughts than I'd anticipated, bear with me for one more.) The 2016 "Macbeth" film, with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard, is more cinematic than theatrical but still does work. Its poetry is just more visual than auditory, a worthy but controversial goal for adapting Shakespeare.
I hope you do, though as a warning, the Fassbender-Cotillard version is unorthodox in the lines it cuts and the acts it depicts. Strong choices but unorthodox ones.
Here are some things I would like to see more of in the Substack-centric poetry universe:
—No more than one picture per poem. Really, I would prefer no pictures at all but I get it, we live on the wrong side of the Gutenberg parenthesis for us to fully embrace text-only; besides, Substack practically demands some sort of thumbnail image per post.
—Printer-friendly poems. I really don't know what this would look like. Substack dev team: can you add a "print this page" button?
—Poems in chunks. Reading poems as they get published is very good, but in our hyperconnected and distraction-prone world it is difficult to give a poem the attention it deserves online. What if poets were to publish several poems at once, rather than one at a time? I realize the lack of focus is a reader problem but we writers can do what we can to help, can't we?
—Chapbook giveaways. This is really the previous two points mingled into one. A downloadable chapbook (Substack already allows PDF embeds) or a link to something on Lulu would be nice for poets who have taken the time to collect and format some of their work.
—More silly poems. It seems to me that the tone on Substack is much more "quiet contemplation" than "let's have jolly ol' time"—why is this? Humorous poems might be just the thing to get people more interested in poetry anyway. Personally, I'm tired of hearing what poets thought about while they were out doing the weeds in the garden or looking at the sunset or whatever. I want more pronouncements on the big themes but given in a silly vein, such as this anonymous gem: https://thebardonthehill.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/art-anonymous/
—More reading aloud. This is beginning to happen more often, so that's good.
Hopefully these aren't too cantankerous and are actually helpful suggestions. Looking forward to reading the completed manifesto—and also the Scarriet overview.
Fantastic input. Thank you.
“Or, if I were a few drinks in, I could well have berated them, insisting that poetry is not something you “get” like Latin verb conjugation, it was something you caught, like chlamydia.”
Is “chlamydia” poetic? I would have thought “the clap” much better!
You’re such a snob. 😘
Reality aside, Chlamydia has a nice ring to it, actually. Could be a Greek goddess...
Really enjoyed reading this. 🤓
Shakespeare is certainly a poet to be both heard and seen (it's what makes his plays indispensable). At a time in high school when our theatre company was staging "Much Ado" and the Scottish play in successive years, we watched a film for each one as part of the rehearsal process: the Joss Whedon "Much Ado About Nothing" (charming but insubstantial) and the Sir Patrick Stewart version of "Macbeth" (still haunting, nearly nine years later). The Stewart film was an adaptation of his West End run of the play, something it shares with the David Tennant-led version of "Hamlet" I also enjoyed watching as a film.
(There are many more thoughts than I'd anticipated, bear with me for one more.) The 2016 "Macbeth" film, with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard, is more cinematic than theatrical but still does work. Its poetry is just more visual than auditory, a worthy but controversial goal for adapting Shakespeare.
I'll have to watch those Macbeths.
I hope you do, though as a warning, the Fassbender-Cotillard version is unorthodox in the lines it cuts and the acts it depicts. Strong choices but unorthodox ones.