Dana – Your #1 is a really healthy way to look at things, I think. I am not sure that it’s always totally helpful to think in terms of changing the world, though. I worry that that makes things seem a lot more daunting than they are… and the fact is that in some ways the world can’t and I would argue shouldn’t be saved. But that’s an argument for another time, and possibly for another blogger (Dale does this argument much better than me).

Good find in that SB comment. I think she must’ve sensed where your true interest lay.

palinode – Thanks for weighing in. It’s always bothered me that poets, who are supposed to excel in works of imagination, are so unimaginative when it comes to their ambitions for their work, so often focusing on prizes and publications invisible to the vast majority of the general reading public. But in their defense, a truly dedicated poet should be spending most of her free time writing, which leaves little time to discover what might be on the internet, for example, beyond a bunch of literary magazines that are striving for recognition by imitating their print counterparts as much as possible. Also, poets are bound to books because their very role is culturally conservative in some ways, and they see themselves as the guardians of attentive, absorptive reading and the literature that feeds it. Books are still the superior technology for that, however much the internet might supplement it.

Incidentally, I would never publish in the New Yorker because they acquire lifetime rights. Authors have to ask for permission to reprint their own works. Fuck that shit.