Dear Joseph Nassise,

I know you've gotten a lot of messages recently, probably both directly and indirectly, on the topic of poetry and the Stokers. I just wanted to write in and add my few cents. I am a recent active member of the HWA, and I became active based entirely on poetry sales, just so you know that I do have an angle here.

Aside from the true but perhaps obvious problem that poetry already receives a back seat in the industry, and that the Stokers no longer having a poetry category would only exacerbate this problem (HWA may not have caused the problem, may not be able to entirely fix the problem, but why add to the problem?), there are three arguments I've seen focused on: 1) that the group involved in the voting here is undereducated and under-read on the subject, 2) that poetry can't be held to fiction genres and thus shouldn't be given a genre based award, or in the negative that self-styled genre poets are so poor at poetry that this is their only market, and 3) that the genre poetry community is politically inbred, which leads to a dearth of nominations and a blind concentration of votes based on favoritism and mutual back-patting.

In reply to 1, I can say that initially you may have a point, but that having brought this to light makes it correctable. (I did not get very involved in the Stokers this year, which I now see as a misappropriation of energies on my part.) I think that claiming the readership is undereducated and throwing away the category in response is a bit of a cop out. (And I realize this hasn't happened yet, which is why I am writing.) Also I'm not sure that it's any more accurate than English professors claiming that people no longer understand the craft of a short-story, or the craft of writing a novel. These works aren't being nominated because they have achieved the pinnacle of short-story-ness, or the pinnacle of novel-ness, but because they made a large enough number of readers react, and a large enough number of HWA members feel good about their power or message or style. Certainly these works also illustrate a high level of skill--but most art needs to in order to be effective, whether you understand *why* it's effective or not isn't necessary to the experience. There is a just argument that more people understand short stories or novels because more people are writing these forms, but then I suspect that all of your complaints about dropping the poetry category from the Stokers have come from people who write poetry. My argument remains that you don't have to be formally educated in an art form to know whether or not it spoke to you: I believe that you've said yourself you can read a poem and know whether you liked it or whether you didn't, or read two and know which poem you liked more. And if with the Stokers we are saying that this work spoke to *us*, the HWA, more loudly or compellingly than the others we read, I don't see a problem. (Unless you are assuming the HWA would be heavily swayed by crap, which I would say is unfair as an assumption.)

I also challenge the statement that poetry is under-read. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that poetry *collections* are under-read. It was mentioned in other forums that this is the crux of our problem here, that the category is "collection" rather than just "poem". My answer to this would be to have both categories, but I realize this will not happen. Perhaps a switch then from the broad collection to the poem in specific would help stimulate reader/voter response. There are online magazines (Strange Horizons and Chiaroscuro's ChiZine come to mind) which publish plenty of poetry which gets read by plenty of people--and pro print mags such as Asimov's and Brutarian are still open to the poetry (and I've read some great poems in Asimov's). These mags aren't using poems as filler pieces, but as attractions and departments of their own. Opening the category to individual poem nominations will get you more nominees and voters.

The second argument above, left in its kinder form, is that poetry knows no genre. This has been a topic of conversation in the general sf poetry community as well, so beware that this topic can become quite the debate. If poetry cannot be bound by the same genres as fiction then all poetry is at least speculative in nature, and fair game in genre circles. And if a poem is chilling in nature, or scientific in nature, or has elements in it which suggest other worlds, or spaceflight, or mythical beasts, then it is not a stretch to term that poem "genre". And to give a thought to the darker side of this argument, that "genre poets" are not on par with the rest of 20th or 21st century poets, I would point out that 1) genre poets are writing *for* that aforementioned "undereducated" audience and 2) that genre poets get read. This is not to say that genre poets are showered with money and scented flowers, but if you ask the HWA at large what modern day poems they have read, they will probably respond with work from SH, ChiZine, and Asimov's. The same people who argue that genre poets are sub-par because they are out of touch with poetry at large in the next breath mention what a dying art poetry is. So aside from the fact that many of your poets are highly educated people in the general sense (2 degrees, English and Law, four minors, History, Art History, Classics, and Women's Studies) and are probably in tune with the conventions of poetry in specific more than they are credited, perhaps this gap should be seen as that elusive "genre" qualifier it seems so difficult to trace. When I write poetry, I want it to be read by *this* group of people. This is the audience for which I write. And I do not believe that I am writing down to achieve this--but I am writing differently than I would for a mainstream poetry critic. But I know that if I write my poetry for that mainstream poetry critic, he will be the only one who reads it. Genre poetry, for me, is poetry which captures in brevity the elements of genre fiction. If you are qualified to judge the fiction, then you are qualified to judge this poetry. (Which also serves to respond to arguments in point 1, hey hey.)

The third argument is one of politics. Because Bruce Boston's name (this is merely an example) is so often seen on awards ballots, it is assumed that there must be a dirty underhanded boys club at work here. This simply isn't true. The reason you see Bruce Boston's name so often on an awards ballot isn't *just* that he's a good poet and deserves recognition, but because Bruce Boston works to promote his poetry. I have never met this man, but I have received emails offering free pdfs, and links to poems, and random actual poems just emailed to me. He works hard to promote his art--and not just at awards time (which, frankly, is when I tend to ignore most offers of free stuff). I don't do this kind of promoting with my own work--and come to think of it, if I had the time, I really should. More people read his work, and notice his publications, because of the work he does in promoting it.

So yes, when there's an award, I imagine there are those who do vote blindly for the person they've heard of before, for the person they've read before. It's true in elections at large, I'm not sure that it's any surprise it's the same here. And it's true that people like Bruce work hard in reminding people that they have work up for nomination, and remind people to vote. But I wouldn't assume that this means any work Bruce has had there is secretly unworthy, or assume the voting was rigged in some way as a response. Again, if you open the category to more than just collections, I'm sure you'll get a much bigger response. And you'll still see Bruce Boston's name in your list. Probably a lot more than once.

I read a post which mentioned the Additions Jury adding a collection to the ballot and "after I asked them to check it out, the 'horror poets' stood up as one, stood shoulder to shoulder, and turned their backs." As I said, I was not very involved in the Stokers this year, which is something I will have to correct next year. I am saddened by this perception of what happened. I consider myself very open to reading the works of others, especially people with whom I am unfamiliar.

I am sorry you didn't feel that you've been getting a good enough turn-out for the poetry award. I'd say that after this scare, you won't have that problem next year. I also hope that should you decide to change something as a result, it will be to make the category more accessible by widening it to more poetry, rather than to nix it altogether. I chose to join the HWA because I felt it was doing more than any other organization to promote poetry. (Obviously I didn't join for the prestige of participating in the Stokers!) Please don't soil my perception of the HWA by dropping poetry on its ass.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Erin Donahoe
erin@sff.net
Active Member HWA