I'll be honest: I wasn't sure how much to expect from this book. I hadn't heard of the publisher before I stumbled upon its website, and a project of this nature almost invites the submission of tossed off poems and amputated bits of abortive poems. As it turns out, though, editor Katerina Stoykova-Klemer has put together a remarkable (and remarkably various) anthology. I've yet to read a single piece in it that seemed thrown in to make up the numbers; as most people who've edited a lit mag or antho will know, that's really saying something. Well worth your $15, I'd say.

I sure say “um” a lot. And wave my hands. Huh. (P.S. Yes, the “rocket out of the soul” stuff is Bukowski. Cyril Wong read that poem as basically his whole talk. Hope that clears things up.)

Props to Ada, Enoch, and the scores of other people who made texture happen. It was fun; I hope it becomes a regular thing.

Except maybe today. I don’t know. Read it and see:

“Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Pausing Between Bites of Umbilical Cord, Addresses His First Aphorism to His Father”

I’ll be speaking this Saturday at a “seminar” organised by my wonderful publisher, firstfruits publications. Each speaker will give a brief talk on some aspect of the creative process (I know, I know).

From what I understand, it’s aimed primarily at student writers, though I’m sure more experienced writers will take a collegial interest in what the speakers have to say. (I’m especially looking forward to Kai Chai’s and Cyril’s presentations.) I haven’t sent in my material yet–bad me!–but I plan to talk about mastering distraction (which is not the same as avoiding it). Expect pics of Maru and Kerouac’s scroll.

Time: 24 September · 19:00 – 20:30
Location: Li Ka Shing Library, reading room, level 5, Singapore Management University (70 Stamford Road, Singapore 178901)

Preregister (free, but required) at this link. See the FB event page for more information.

Props to the NUS and SMU literary societies for their part in organising this. I know from experience what a bother it can be.

The second poem previously appeared in in an exhibition I mentioned earlier, accompanied by a visual interpretation by Izyanti Asa’ari:

Pretty cool, no? I’d meant to post it much earlier, but I’d forgotten until the poem’s publication reminded me. So here it is.

10 Years of QLRS – Celebrating the Independent Literary Spirit

Date: 25 Oct /2011
Time: 8:00 pm – 10:00 pm
Venue: Glass Hall, Singapore Art Museum
Free Admission

The Quarterly Literary Review Singapore (QLRS) celebrates its first decade by highlighting some of its contributors and landmarks. Founded by Toh Hsien Min in 2001, the non-profit volunteer website has quietly featured 353 writers who have shared 344 poems, 130 short stories, 49 essays, 94 critiques, 20 interviews and 125 other articles. Learn more about the spirit that fuels the editorial team, and the challenges that lie ahead for the Singapore literary scene.

Featuring: Toh Hsien Min, Chan Ziqian, Grace Chua, Nicholas Liu, Gwee Li Sui, Bani Haykal, Daren Shiau, Leonard Ng, O Thiam Chin, Stephanie Ye, Gilbert Koh and Kelvin Tan

The second is a panel I’ll be moderating, called Because Poetry Matters (scroll down; this one requires a festival pass, BTW). It’s the first panel I’m moderating at someone else’s request (rather than planning it myself), and the three poets on it write in traditions unfamiliar to me (slam/performance for Chris and Marc, Tamil for Cheran), so it should be “a new experience” or something. Looking forward to that, too.

Fun facts about the chapbook:

1) It’s a collage of lines from a Left Behind novel.

2) It is deeply moving.

3) It contains the questions “Just what did last night smell like?” and “Why didn’t you tell me you were a candidate for the Papacy?”

4) It has lots of cookie eating in it, for some reason.

Maybe this sounds like something you need in your life? For $2, it can be.

This “grassroots, non-profit”, “first-of-its-kind” contest claims to use an “innovative community funding model” to “deliver a major annual poetry prize funded directly by poets themselves, turning the historic patronage model on its head”. Okay, whatever–guff is guff, so let’s get down to brass tacks. How much would you expect to pay for a shot at its single $50,000 prize? No, not a $20 submission fee for five poems, like the Boston Review contest. Not £6 for the first poem and £3 thereafter, like the UK’s National Poetry Competition (though that’s already quite steep). Not $25 for the consideration of a full book manuscript, like the Fence contests.

Behold: the Montreal Prize charges $15-25 for the first poem and $10-15 for each subsequent one. You’ll notice that the initial fee ranges from merely high ($15) to stupidly high ($20) to ridiculously high ($25). Why the variation? Well, part of it is the early submission discount, which makes sense, and the other part is this:

The Montreal Prize is meant to be a truly global effort and so we want our fees to reflect the fact that some countries are richer than others. Therefore, we’ve decided to subsidize entries from less wealthy countries in order to encourage more equal participation.

So, say the average person in the Philippines (one of the “subsidized” countries, 135th by GNI per capita at $2,050) wants to enter, and they manage to get their shit together in time for the early entry deadline (April 22nd). It’ll only cost them, oh, two-and-a-half days’ wages to enter a single poem. If they enter two poems, they pay a bargain price of four-and-a-half day’s wages. There’s “more equal participation” for you.

The funny thing is, even at this “subsidized” rate, the Montreal Prize is more expensive to enter than lots of (flat-fee) contests already out there–contests with smaller prizes, to be sure, but much better odds of actually winning. It may or may not be the most expensive poetry contest in existence, but it’s certainly up there. What makes it really disgraceful, though, isn’t the cost itself. It’s what the money is going toward:

The first Montreal Prize has been made possible by a generous and anonymous $50,000 catalyst donation. . . . This funding model is made possible thanks to those who support the Montreal Prize directly by participating in it. Their entry fees go towards paying the editors and covering other costs associated with the Montreal Prize. Along with the support of our catalyst funding and any future sponsorship, the entry fee makes the Montreal Prize happen.

Just how much money are we talking about? According to the Montreal Gazette, “Thousands of submissions are expected. The rough edit by the international poets – 10 in all, in countries as varied as Malawi, Guyana, Northern Ireland, India and Canada – is the first step. Each has agreed to read at least 1,000 poems.” In other words, they’re anticipating a take of significantly over $100,000. Needless to say, that’s twice the pay-out.

Remember that thing about “turning the historic patronage model on its head”? Well, here it is in action. The historic patronage model involved non-poets paying poets for their labour; this prize, as advertised, involves exactly the reverse. Since the prize itself comes pre-funded, every cent of your entry fee is going towards the costs of having “an Advisory Board, an Editorial Board, a Prize Judge, directors and interns” (not that the last group is likely to see any of it), among other things. It’s not keeping a literary press alive, offsetting the cost of a complimentary copy of the anthology, producing an open-access resource, or supporting some charitable cause. It isn’t even going towards an honorarium for the 50 entrants whose work will be anthologised (unless, for some odd reason, they’re just hiding this bit of generosity). Instead, it’s going right back into the maintenance of an apparatus created for the express purpose of administering this prize. All this just to give one person in the world $50,000.

In short:

Conventional contests: Poets pass a hat around, giving all the takings to a few lucky/talented poets.

The Montreal Prize: Poets pass a hat around, giving all the takings to the administrators who bought the hat.

Innovative!