This was a very fair and judicious review. I am far less tolerant and skim most of Poetry Review these days, finding it of little interest. A poet friend of mine says he subscribes to certain magazines in the spirit in which one buys a bunch of charity raffle tickets: to show willing. Part of the problem may be that there is such a high turnover in editors that slowly building a magazine’s character/personality doesn’t happen. That takes time. But behind this is a much bigger problem of the lack of consensus about what is good and bad in contemporary poetry. We don’t want uniformity or bossiness but some convincing sense of what might matter is the basis of any decent, intelligible criticism.
Thanks for commenting. Yes, I think it must be harder for a magazine like Poetry Review which changes editor fairly regularly -- so isn't driven by a single vision, as the most reliably satisfying magazines generally are -- and also, presumably, has to balance its role as a leading national poetry magazine with its status as a society publication. I think actually PR, at least on the showing of this issue, *does* make the case for quite a specific view of what constitutes a good contemporary poem, but it does so implicitly, in a way that implies that its view is obvious or the default perspective. It must get massive numbers of submissions, and can also presumably commission or solicit freely and with a high rate of success, so if the result is quite narrow then that is in itself a strong statement of aesthetic preference. It does have a kind of coherence I think which would be harder to achieve from a broader base. I was most bothered I think by the degree to which various in themselves quite minor editorial decisions -- not glossing this or explaining who someone is or why their work mattered -- added up to give the impression of a private conversation.
I agree, though Poetry Magazine here in the States doesn't have the high turnover of editors & its reputation was established with Pound Eliot Stevens & high modernism. It's what you call the bigger problem that is the problem. "Heaven knows, anything goes..."
Another terrific article. I would comment that the combination of narrowness and emphasis on diversity does not seem at all paradoxical in contemporary British intellectual culture. The parts of universities, for example, with explicit focus on diversity also seem to be those parts where the greatest monoculture exists in terms of worldview.
Looking at the prizewinners and commended poets in the competitions the Poetry Society run (e.g. their Nation Poetry Competition and Young Poets competition) the same kind of 'house style' seems to exist as for Poetry Review, in terms of a focus on identity and a strong preference for free verse. Indeed, this preference seems so marked that something like a regular sonnet would seem to stand out as much as the late Queen wearing hotpants.
I try as hard as possible to extend maximal charity to those with different tastes than my own, on the presumption that they see things I miss, but it does seem a shame that a body with such an explicit mission to promote the totality of poetry elevates so strongly forms that have cut ties with essentially all English verse prior to about 1920 and much of what comes after.
I would love to see more reviews of poetry magazines, especially if they were written like this: you're very fair-minded given that many of the features of the poetic zeitgeist (I think that's what they are) which you describe are frankly exasperating IMO, e.g. 'intertwined discussion'
A very interesting and worthwhile review which chimed with my own reading of Poetry Review. Poetry can be many things but, for me, the essential element is that the language is condensed, economical and musical (not necessarily in a harmonious way). I was puzzled by the long prose pieces in the latest issue, it is an enormous stretch to consider such writing, however good, to be poetry. I also loved the Imtiaz Dharker poem! Your point about respect for the original language of translated poetry is very important. I subscribe to "Interpret", a small, Scottish based international journal, fiercely multilingual, in which each issue has the original version, alongside the translation. The art of the translator is celebrated. Regarding the Poetry Society, I am a huge enthusiast. The quarterly newsletter, Poetry News, has a different vibe, much more readable, good variety of poems including a section for young poets and poems by readers. The local Stanza groups are superb for workshopping and other activities. Perhaps the Editor of Poetry News will take an interest in your (and other) feedback and we might see a swing towards a more popular, accessible variety of work, without dumbing down or excluding challenging poetry which breaks with traditional forms and themes. It's a thick compendium and there should be plenty of room in there, each issue!
I have been mulling over the question “what does it mean?”. I do find myself wondering that quite a lot when I reas poetry, sometimes in a happy way (the meaning seems on the tip of my tongue, almost speakable…) and sometimes in a way that leaves me feeling mostly stupid.
As a translator of poetry myself, I wonder whether translating causes a particular sensitivity to the question of “what does it mean?” Because if you aren’t able to feel secure in a primary meaning and secondary allusions, you can translate the words themselves, but not the nuances which make the poem.
That's such an interesting point. Yes, perhaps those of us who translate a lot are particularly sensitive to the force of that question -- not just 'what is the literal meaning of these two words' but 'what is the effect of putting them together?'. Good poetry so often (perhaps always) suggests multiple meanings in a much more intense way than writing of other genres. So any attempt to answer these questions will often be inexhaustible. But I really like your distinction between the kind of difficulty in answering which is associated with pleasure, and the kind that makes the reader feel dull or excluded.
A clubby publication for insiders does sound like the end of the line. And poems about poetry for poets remind me a little of songs that established bands and songwriters so often end up writing: about life on the road as a touring musician. A shrunken vision of what their art can be.
Yes to “The Weaver” poem. Just read that aloud here and got a big laugh. Although it’s almost more like a standup comedian’s bit than a poem. Maybe someone was listening to Jerry Seinfeld: “Poetry is bad standup. It’s carefully chosen words that have no laugh at the end.”
Thanks for commenting. I think The Weaver is a good poem and not just a joke, though I do see what you mean. It makes expert use of rhythm, cadence & rhyme. It seems like a classic example of the epigram to me, not in itself the most fashionable form perhaps. I was really glad to have read it and at the end of the day one genuinely good poem per issue of a poetry magazine is not a bad rate!
I seem to recall reading once that Edgar Lee Masters drew on ancient Greek epigrams in the writing of the Spoon River poems. But I couldn’t find many examples, maybe a couple from tombstones or something. Would you be interested in writing about epigrams as a form?
Thanks for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes... It's sad and frustrating that the 'mainstream' poetry world seems determined to commit suicide. It's as if the subculture assumes the average reader will have no interest in contemporary poetry; so why try to appeal to them? A fair question, perhaps, though it has things backwards: if the average reader has lost interest in poetry, might it be worth thinking about *why?* Could it be that contemporary poets themselves are to blame...
Thanks for commenting. I think PR, at least in this particular issue, represents a very small part of the actual poetry world though -- I mean if we take that to mean all the people who read and share poetry, however formally or informally. Like you, I find it a bit frustrating that the biggest national magazine should represent such a small constituency, but most people who care about poetry in their everyday lives aren't reading or buying any poetry magazines at all, they are just reading things and perhaps sharing them or saying their favourite poems to their children, or whatever. And it's also true that there are magazines out there which are much more wide-ranging -- as indeed PR itself has been in the past and perhaps will be again at some point. As well as all the online journals, some of which are really good. So I feel a bit less despondent than you.
fair enough. I don't feel despondent, necessarily - I do try to see the funny side of such constituencies' efforts to be relevant ending in their being quite the opposite. perhaps it was ever thus... and yes, there are plenty of alternatives!
I’m slowly developing a visceral aversion to poetry written for poets. It’s endlessly self-referential, a blind worm eating it’s own tail. Partly for this reason I unfashionably use rhyme (so the non-poet reader might feel like it’s recognizable as poetry) and try (and fail) not to refer too much to poetry in and of itself.
I never read Poetry Review, and this rather confirms me in that. Mags I subscribe to include The Dark Horse, Gutter, and the always excellent Shearsman. For the best range of stylistic diversity along with quality, though, I'd warmly recommend Tears in the Fence and Long Poem Magazine.
Oh yes Long Poem Magazine is a great call, I should have mentioned that one in the note as I do know it. Don't think I have ever bought Shearsman though, thanks for the tip!
This was very interesting to read. As a flash fiction and short story writer I've often wondered similar things about lit mags, and have sometimes concluded that they exist for those of us lucky enough to be published in them to use them as a line on the CV, rather than for a general reader to enjoy. If most of the readers (or at least most of the readers who might also be interested in writing a thoughtful review) are also writers who are actively submitting, intend to submit one day, and/or know many people who do submit, they are unlikely to want to criticise a magazine in case they jeopardise their own chances or seem to be criticising their friends' writing. And if many of the magazines would be in for criticism if they got honest reviews, that might go some way to explaining why we don't often see magazine reviews in the wild.
I think you're on to something there Jacqueline! And in fact it's clear that the assumption that people only read lit mags if they're thinking of submitting to them is so engrained in some quarters that my review was only comprehensible in that context -- several online comments screenshots of which have been forwarded to me conclude, or even just state, that I am bitter because my poetry has been rejected by the magazine or because I know that they would never accept it. I found this particular interpretation very revealing of wider attitudes in some quarters as to what such a magazine is for. And on whole I suppose I think it's not really a problem, even if it's a bit sad/limited, if certain magazines are only being read by their own contributors or would-be contributors, I'm sure that has *always* been the case -- coterie publication was very important in the 17th century, for instance. But the biggest national poetry magazine, published by the national poetry society and supported by very significant public funding is, I think, properly a different matter.
Ah. Not just me then! I read the last issue wondering if there was something I was missing. And the one before that! Bought the subscription as a treat to self but it doesn't feel like much of one, in part because of the moralizing tone. PNR much more interesting.
Ah my reading of French magazines is still really haphazard, I don't feel I fully understand the world yet so I have bought things quite randomly, mostly just when I was struck by a particular piece or poem. I've also bought quite a few older ones second hand which are interesting but don't necessarily help much with contemporary orientation because half the time they no longer exist! I'm lucky to live close to a specialist poetry shop though which stocks lots of different ones. I'll planning another post soon about contemporary French poetry so will try to come back to this. I might try asking on French twitter as well, see what people say.
Thank you for this close look at PR. There's alot to love about PR, but I agree it can be a bit unquestioningly clubby. A recent interview between two poets mentioned a situation that I was personally involved in (but not named in the interview). The take on the situation misrepresented what I had said and was incredibly hurtful and damaging just in terms of personal confidence. The interview format seems to encourage that sort of mutual back-stroking so I can understand why a participant might reframe things to be on the same page as the other poet. I am unimportant in the scheme of things, it would be churlish and unrealistic of me to complain. But it did leave me quite down.
Thanks for this Victoria, I've been thinking about it a lot of the last few days. I've never been a regular subscriber despite buying occaisional issues, but I've never tried to articulate why. I think, for what it's worth, PR is a poisoned chalice - the backing from the PS means it's essentially an 'official' publication, so the editor won't feel able to openly advocate for their own taste or commitments but won't be able to hide them in the long term, either. In those circumstances, 'dour and cliquey' is pretty much inevitable. WHS said in his first issue that he was wondering what he had let himself in for...
I was quite excited by that issue - in part because it felt like he was putting his own stamp on the poetry, and ultimately what one wants from an editor is a personality and range of reading/understanding one might learn from even where one is coming from somewhere different. I don't really have the same tastes as e.g. Poetry Birmingham, or The Dark Horse or PN Review, say, but I get a huge amount from each of them because the editors are free to follow their instincts (and obviously know so much more than me).
So it's hard to treat it like a normal magazine. I think Nicholas is right that the turnover of editors doesn't help. In a way the elephant in the room is the Society itself. There's always been some ambiguity about how independent PR editors are - Muriel Spark was sacked, and there was that big, murky hoohaa a few years ago which resulted in almost everyone involved resigning. I think the Society has become more and more synonymous with UK poetry recently, because the scene is so small and they are one of the biggest (if not *the* biggest) recipients of public funding - and that this really isn't very healthy for anyone. There's probably a case for separating the magazine off entirely, but I doubt there's any appetite.
Thanks so much Jeremy for this very thoughtful reply. I think it was WHS's first issue (or perhaps second?) that printed the exchange between Don Paterson and Gboyega Odubanjo which I mention in the last footnote. I thought that was a brave and interesting thing to have printed because it alluded, at least, to some fairly fundamental differences of opinion without attempting to adjudicate on or resolve them, and it did not try to conceal a genuine prickliness and even incomprehension between the two. It felt less "cliquey" I think because Paterson and Odubanjo represented very different parts of the poetry world and very different styles of writing as well different ages/stages, and there was little mutual flattery.
If I'm honest, I've found PR often a bit dull and disappointing for a long time but I was also aware how rarely one does more than flick through a magazine and read just the bits that first catch your eye. I embarked on this review with curiosity and no feeling of hostility: I thought I might be more rather than less impressed by a sustained scrutiny. So I'm still not really sure whether I would have had a similar response if I'd done the same exercise with earlier issues, or whether some of the things I noticed were more pronounced in this particular one than usual.
I totally agree that the link with the society & the turnover of editors, especially taken together, must complicate things (some other journals also change editors fairly frequently, though it is perhaps true that the most successful ones don't). I suppose part of what struck me was the disjunction between the stated mission of the society - all types of poetry for everyone and general poetry education, sort of thing - and the narrowness of PR, both in the style and tone of what they print and in the lack of historical context.
I agree that I think the magazine would work better if it were either completely independent, and the editor were free to set and defend their own aesthetic agenda more explicitly; or if it sought more directly to reflect the range of tastes and interests of poetry society members and the wider poetry reading and teaching public.
I think the point about public funding is an important one. I originally had a footnote about this though deleted it, perhaps wrongly. These figures are all publicly available. The Poetry Society receives, according to their last accounts, about 350k p.a. of Arts Council England funding, in addition to some other smaller grants. That's peanuts of course in many other contexts but it's quite a lot in the world of UK poetry I imagine. They derive almost as much again (about 320k) from the sale of poetry-related services (I suppose workshops and so on) and somewhat less (about 230k) from membership and publications -- presumably mostly membership fees since only relatively few people (about 500 by their own reckoning) subscribe to the review without being members, and it's not sold in a large number of places. So they are not making much money from the review and they have a secure and (for poetry) high circulation based on society membership alone. But they are in receipt of significant public funding.
This was a very fair and judicious review. I am far less tolerant and skim most of Poetry Review these days, finding it of little interest. A poet friend of mine says he subscribes to certain magazines in the spirit in which one buys a bunch of charity raffle tickets: to show willing. Part of the problem may be that there is such a high turnover in editors that slowly building a magazine’s character/personality doesn’t happen. That takes time. But behind this is a much bigger problem of the lack of consensus about what is good and bad in contemporary poetry. We don’t want uniformity or bossiness but some convincing sense of what might matter is the basis of any decent, intelligible criticism.
Thanks for commenting. Yes, I think it must be harder for a magazine like Poetry Review which changes editor fairly regularly -- so isn't driven by a single vision, as the most reliably satisfying magazines generally are -- and also, presumably, has to balance its role as a leading national poetry magazine with its status as a society publication. I think actually PR, at least on the showing of this issue, *does* make the case for quite a specific view of what constitutes a good contemporary poem, but it does so implicitly, in a way that implies that its view is obvious or the default perspective. It must get massive numbers of submissions, and can also presumably commission or solicit freely and with a high rate of success, so if the result is quite narrow then that is in itself a strong statement of aesthetic preference. It does have a kind of coherence I think which would be harder to achieve from a broader base. I was most bothered I think by the degree to which various in themselves quite minor editorial decisions -- not glossing this or explaining who someone is or why their work mattered -- added up to give the impression of a private conversation.
I agree, though Poetry Magazine here in the States doesn't have the high turnover of editors & its reputation was established with Pound Eliot Stevens & high modernism. It's what you call the bigger problem that is the problem. "Heaven knows, anything goes..."
Another terrific article. I would comment that the combination of narrowness and emphasis on diversity does not seem at all paradoxical in contemporary British intellectual culture. The parts of universities, for example, with explicit focus on diversity also seem to be those parts where the greatest monoculture exists in terms of worldview.
Looking at the prizewinners and commended poets in the competitions the Poetry Society run (e.g. their Nation Poetry Competition and Young Poets competition) the same kind of 'house style' seems to exist as for Poetry Review, in terms of a focus on identity and a strong preference for free verse. Indeed, this preference seems so marked that something like a regular sonnet would seem to stand out as much as the late Queen wearing hotpants.
I try as hard as possible to extend maximal charity to those with different tastes than my own, on the presumption that they see things I miss, but it does seem a shame that a body with such an explicit mission to promote the totality of poetry elevates so strongly forms that have cut ties with essentially all English verse prior to about 1920 and much of what comes after.
More of this. Thank you for taking it up.
I would love to see more reviews of poetry magazines, especially if they were written like this: you're very fair-minded given that many of the features of the poetic zeitgeist (I think that's what they are) which you describe are frankly exasperating IMO, e.g. 'intertwined discussion'
A very interesting and worthwhile review which chimed with my own reading of Poetry Review. Poetry can be many things but, for me, the essential element is that the language is condensed, economical and musical (not necessarily in a harmonious way). I was puzzled by the long prose pieces in the latest issue, it is an enormous stretch to consider such writing, however good, to be poetry. I also loved the Imtiaz Dharker poem! Your point about respect for the original language of translated poetry is very important. I subscribe to "Interpret", a small, Scottish based international journal, fiercely multilingual, in which each issue has the original version, alongside the translation. The art of the translator is celebrated. Regarding the Poetry Society, I am a huge enthusiast. The quarterly newsletter, Poetry News, has a different vibe, much more readable, good variety of poems including a section for young poets and poems by readers. The local Stanza groups are superb for workshopping and other activities. Perhaps the Editor of Poetry News will take an interest in your (and other) feedback and we might see a swing towards a more popular, accessible variety of work, without dumbing down or excluding challenging poetry which breaks with traditional forms and themes. It's a thick compendium and there should be plenty of room in there, each issue!
I have been mulling over the question “what does it mean?”. I do find myself wondering that quite a lot when I reas poetry, sometimes in a happy way (the meaning seems on the tip of my tongue, almost speakable…) and sometimes in a way that leaves me feeling mostly stupid.
As a translator of poetry myself, I wonder whether translating causes a particular sensitivity to the question of “what does it mean?” Because if you aren’t able to feel secure in a primary meaning and secondary allusions, you can translate the words themselves, but not the nuances which make the poem.
That's such an interesting point. Yes, perhaps those of us who translate a lot are particularly sensitive to the force of that question -- not just 'what is the literal meaning of these two words' but 'what is the effect of putting them together?'. Good poetry so often (perhaps always) suggests multiple meanings in a much more intense way than writing of other genres. So any attempt to answer these questions will often be inexhaustible. But I really like your distinction between the kind of difficulty in answering which is associated with pleasure, and the kind that makes the reader feel dull or excluded.
A clubby publication for insiders does sound like the end of the line. And poems about poetry for poets remind me a little of songs that established bands and songwriters so often end up writing: about life on the road as a touring musician. A shrunken vision of what their art can be.
Yes to “The Weaver” poem. Just read that aloud here and got a big laugh. Although it’s almost more like a standup comedian’s bit than a poem. Maybe someone was listening to Jerry Seinfeld: “Poetry is bad standup. It’s carefully chosen words that have no laugh at the end.”
Thanks for commenting. I think The Weaver is a good poem and not just a joke, though I do see what you mean. It makes expert use of rhythm, cadence & rhyme. It seems like a classic example of the epigram to me, not in itself the most fashionable form perhaps. I was really glad to have read it and at the end of the day one genuinely good poem per issue of a poetry magazine is not a bad rate!
I seem to recall reading once that Edgar Lee Masters drew on ancient Greek epigrams in the writing of the Spoon River poems. But I couldn’t find many examples, maybe a couple from tombstones or something. Would you be interested in writing about epigrams as a form?
Thanks for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes... It's sad and frustrating that the 'mainstream' poetry world seems determined to commit suicide. It's as if the subculture assumes the average reader will have no interest in contemporary poetry; so why try to appeal to them? A fair question, perhaps, though it has things backwards: if the average reader has lost interest in poetry, might it be worth thinking about *why?* Could it be that contemporary poets themselves are to blame...
Thanks for commenting. I think PR, at least in this particular issue, represents a very small part of the actual poetry world though -- I mean if we take that to mean all the people who read and share poetry, however formally or informally. Like you, I find it a bit frustrating that the biggest national magazine should represent such a small constituency, but most people who care about poetry in their everyday lives aren't reading or buying any poetry magazines at all, they are just reading things and perhaps sharing them or saying their favourite poems to their children, or whatever. And it's also true that there are magazines out there which are much more wide-ranging -- as indeed PR itself has been in the past and perhaps will be again at some point. As well as all the online journals, some of which are really good. So I feel a bit less despondent than you.
fair enough. I don't feel despondent, necessarily - I do try to see the funny side of such constituencies' efforts to be relevant ending in their being quite the opposite. perhaps it was ever thus... and yes, there are plenty of alternatives!
I’m slowly developing a visceral aversion to poetry written for poets. It’s endlessly self-referential, a blind worm eating it’s own tail. Partly for this reason I unfashionably use rhyme (so the non-poet reader might feel like it’s recognizable as poetry) and try (and fail) not to refer too much to poetry in and of itself.
Worms are all blind
completely agree! ive been attempting to review literary journals occasionally for years, myself: https://robmclennan.blogspot.com/search/label/literary%20journals
I never read Poetry Review, and this rather confirms me in that. Mags I subscribe to include The Dark Horse, Gutter, and the always excellent Shearsman. For the best range of stylistic diversity along with quality, though, I'd warmly recommend Tears in the Fence and Long Poem Magazine.
Oh yes Long Poem Magazine is a great call, I should have mentioned that one in the note as I do know it. Don't think I have ever bought Shearsman though, thanks for the tip!
This was very interesting to read. As a flash fiction and short story writer I've often wondered similar things about lit mags, and have sometimes concluded that they exist for those of us lucky enough to be published in them to use them as a line on the CV, rather than for a general reader to enjoy. If most of the readers (or at least most of the readers who might also be interested in writing a thoughtful review) are also writers who are actively submitting, intend to submit one day, and/or know many people who do submit, they are unlikely to want to criticise a magazine in case they jeopardise their own chances or seem to be criticising their friends' writing. And if many of the magazines would be in for criticism if they got honest reviews, that might go some way to explaining why we don't often see magazine reviews in the wild.
I think you're on to something there Jacqueline! And in fact it's clear that the assumption that people only read lit mags if they're thinking of submitting to them is so engrained in some quarters that my review was only comprehensible in that context -- several online comments screenshots of which have been forwarded to me conclude, or even just state, that I am bitter because my poetry has been rejected by the magazine or because I know that they would never accept it. I found this particular interpretation very revealing of wider attitudes in some quarters as to what such a magazine is for. And on whole I suppose I think it's not really a problem, even if it's a bit sad/limited, if certain magazines are only being read by their own contributors or would-be contributors, I'm sure that has *always* been the case -- coterie publication was very important in the 17th century, for instance. But the biggest national poetry magazine, published by the national poetry society and supported by very significant public funding is, I think, properly a different matter.
Ah. Not just me then! I read the last issue wondering if there was something I was missing. And the one before that! Bought the subscription as a treat to self but it doesn't feel like much of one, in part because of the moralizing tone. PNR much more interesting.
As an aspiring reader of poetry I found this very interesting--thank you. I'd love to know which French literary magazines you recommend!
Ah my reading of French magazines is still really haphazard, I don't feel I fully understand the world yet so I have bought things quite randomly, mostly just when I was struck by a particular piece or poem. I've also bought quite a few older ones second hand which are interesting but don't necessarily help much with contemporary orientation because half the time they no longer exist! I'm lucky to live close to a specialist poetry shop though which stocks lots of different ones. I'll planning another post soon about contemporary French poetry so will try to come back to this. I might try asking on French twitter as well, see what people say.
Thank you for this close look at PR. There's alot to love about PR, but I agree it can be a bit unquestioningly clubby. A recent interview between two poets mentioned a situation that I was personally involved in (but not named in the interview). The take on the situation misrepresented what I had said and was incredibly hurtful and damaging just in terms of personal confidence. The interview format seems to encourage that sort of mutual back-stroking so I can understand why a participant might reframe things to be on the same page as the other poet. I am unimportant in the scheme of things, it would be churlish and unrealistic of me to complain. But it did leave me quite down.
Thanks for this Victoria, I've been thinking about it a lot of the last few days. I've never been a regular subscriber despite buying occaisional issues, but I've never tried to articulate why. I think, for what it's worth, PR is a poisoned chalice - the backing from the PS means it's essentially an 'official' publication, so the editor won't feel able to openly advocate for their own taste or commitments but won't be able to hide them in the long term, either. In those circumstances, 'dour and cliquey' is pretty much inevitable. WHS said in his first issue that he was wondering what he had let himself in for...
I was quite excited by that issue - in part because it felt like he was putting his own stamp on the poetry, and ultimately what one wants from an editor is a personality and range of reading/understanding one might learn from even where one is coming from somewhere different. I don't really have the same tastes as e.g. Poetry Birmingham, or The Dark Horse or PN Review, say, but I get a huge amount from each of them because the editors are free to follow their instincts (and obviously know so much more than me).
So it's hard to treat it like a normal magazine. I think Nicholas is right that the turnover of editors doesn't help. In a way the elephant in the room is the Society itself. There's always been some ambiguity about how independent PR editors are - Muriel Spark was sacked, and there was that big, murky hoohaa a few years ago which resulted in almost everyone involved resigning. I think the Society has become more and more synonymous with UK poetry recently, because the scene is so small and they are one of the biggest (if not *the* biggest) recipients of public funding - and that this really isn't very healthy for anyone. There's probably a case for separating the magazine off entirely, but I doubt there's any appetite.
Thanks so much Jeremy for this very thoughtful reply. I think it was WHS's first issue (or perhaps second?) that printed the exchange between Don Paterson and Gboyega Odubanjo which I mention in the last footnote. I thought that was a brave and interesting thing to have printed because it alluded, at least, to some fairly fundamental differences of opinion without attempting to adjudicate on or resolve them, and it did not try to conceal a genuine prickliness and even incomprehension between the two. It felt less "cliquey" I think because Paterson and Odubanjo represented very different parts of the poetry world and very different styles of writing as well different ages/stages, and there was little mutual flattery.
If I'm honest, I've found PR often a bit dull and disappointing for a long time but I was also aware how rarely one does more than flick through a magazine and read just the bits that first catch your eye. I embarked on this review with curiosity and no feeling of hostility: I thought I might be more rather than less impressed by a sustained scrutiny. So I'm still not really sure whether I would have had a similar response if I'd done the same exercise with earlier issues, or whether some of the things I noticed were more pronounced in this particular one than usual.
I totally agree that the link with the society & the turnover of editors, especially taken together, must complicate things (some other journals also change editors fairly frequently, though it is perhaps true that the most successful ones don't). I suppose part of what struck me was the disjunction between the stated mission of the society - all types of poetry for everyone and general poetry education, sort of thing - and the narrowness of PR, both in the style and tone of what they print and in the lack of historical context.
I agree that I think the magazine would work better if it were either completely independent, and the editor were free to set and defend their own aesthetic agenda more explicitly; or if it sought more directly to reflect the range of tastes and interests of poetry society members and the wider poetry reading and teaching public.
I think the point about public funding is an important one. I originally had a footnote about this though deleted it, perhaps wrongly. These figures are all publicly available. The Poetry Society receives, according to their last accounts, about 350k p.a. of Arts Council England funding, in addition to some other smaller grants. That's peanuts of course in many other contexts but it's quite a lot in the world of UK poetry I imagine. They derive almost as much again (about 320k) from the sale of poetry-related services (I suppose workshops and so on) and somewhat less (about 230k) from membership and publications -- presumably mostly membership fees since only relatively few people (about 500 by their own reckoning) subscribe to the review without being members, and it's not sold in a large number of places. So they are not making much money from the review and they have a secure and (for poetry) high circulation based on society membership alone. But they are in receipt of significant public funding.