Postcards from the Imagination

Following from the comments I made over at Seth's (who was in turn responding to Charlie):

• What is a great poem vs. a good poem vs. a mediocre poem vs. a good one? Can one really rate a poem, say on a scale of one to ten, or do most poems either hit or miss? It's easy enough to think about books this way--"Okay, but not great," "Good, though uneven"--but is there enough material in individual poems, particularly in magazines where they tend to be short and isolated from the rest of the poet's work, to make such fine distinctions? If a poem seems to say something important, but the language is dry, do we call it a failure, or a mediocre poem? If the language is dazzling, but the voice is inauthentic, do we call it a miss or say it's good, but not great? If nothing in a poem invites me to read it a second time, was it worth having read the first time? I have no definite answers to any of these questions.
  
  
• Is a writer "owed" anything by his or her editors, readers, critics for simply having written? As an editor I struggle with this one from time to time. I personally read nearly all the poems that are submitted to us, and sometimes I get peeved at submitters. That is, sometimes I think people (too many people) are asking for a read who don't bother to read a fraction (if any) of the decent work already in print. Do I owe it to them to read each of their poems from start to finish? In practice I do, but I'm beginning to wonder if we wouldn't cut our response time in half, without impacting the quality of our journal, if I didn't. A related question: What, if anything, is the poet who publishes in a magazine, or who puts out a book, "owed" by critics? This is different than asking how a critic should behave. I have very little respect for spiteful, self-serving critics, but that's primarily because the way they engage with texts produces nothing of value. As to the poets themselves, should I try to like their work? Or should they be trying to win me over? Third possibility: trying is not an option for either party. Whatever's going to happen between reader and writer is going to happen and can't be forced. To put a finer point on it, a poet can work to fulfill his or her own vision, but can't remake that vision in line with a given public's desires.
  
  

• Related question: Should art be democratic? Do the same ethics which apply to social and political life hold for the creative process? (I mean everything from the act of creation, through the publication, reception, and recognition of the work.) In terms of the opportunity to create I'd have a real problem saying it should be limited to those who exhibit talent early or have independent means. On the other hand, I don't think the hardest working (or nicest, or most generous, etc.) poet in America is necessarily the one who deserves the Pulitzer Prize. I'm sure other people have already thought about this more cogently, and I should probably read those people. (I need one of those genius grants so I can take two or three years off just to read).