There’s a storm in the poetry world, this one set off by the bio in Best American Poetry 2015 of Michael Derrick Hudson, who has been publishing under the name Yi-Fen Chou. I’m not here to talk about the poem, or about how (at least) silly the notion of collecting some poems from the previous year and calling them the “best” of anything is. (An honest title for the anthology would be “Poems From 2015 Our Guest Editor Really Liked,” but that probably wouldn’t sell as well.) Here’s an image of the bio in question:
Some on social media have suggested that this makes the editors of the magazine the poem originally appeared in look bad, as though they were willing to take a poem by an apparently Asian writer that they had previously rejected from a white writer, the implication being that the writer’s lack of whiteness was, in this case, a help rather than a hindrance to getting the work noticed. I am here to say that Hudson and his defenders are full of it.
First of all, there’s no indication outside of Hudson’s narrative that the yellowface he adopted had anything to do with the acceptance of his poem. He sent the poem out, he claims, 50 times, 40 times as Hudson, 10 times as Chou. Isn’t it more likely that his persistence had more to do with the poem finding a home than his choice of an Asian name? The more readers/editors see a poem, the better the chances that one of those people will see something they like in it. We’re not talking about scientific articles which (should) go through rigorous peer review here and can be judged by some empirical standard—there’s no yardstick by which we can measure poems and say “this poem measures 74 Frosts while this one is 89 Frosts and so we should pick the second one for publication.”
But lets turn this into a thought experiment for a moment and assume Hudson had sent the same poem to the same journal under two names, the “white” name rejected and the Asian one accepted. Would that prove the insinuation that this editor was more interested in the writer’s bio than the poems, and that this is a “problem” in the poetry world? Not really. Here are some alternative explanations for how such a thing could happen (and anyone who’s been the poetry editor of a journal can easily add to these).
1. There’s a shifting group of first readers, and while one first reader rejected the submission, a second one felt it was worth passing along to the editors for a second look.
2. Editors are human beings subject to changes in moods and affected by the pressures of the day. A poem that didn’t hit them one day might gut punch them at another time. And given the sheer number of poems most editors read while trying to put together an issue of a journal, it’s easy to imagine reading the same poem twice many months (if not years) apart and not remembering it.
3. An editor with a conscious desire to have a diverse set of authors represented in the journal might have given the work presented by a person claiming to be an Asian author a closer look.
Editors and readers, feel free to add your own scenarios in the comments.
Much of the rhetoric surrounding this conversation echoes the uglier arguments I’ve heard all my life about Affirmative Action: that less qualified people/poorer poems are getting slots that should have gone to more qualified/better poems; that editors have quotas they want to fill with poems by “certain people” so they can feel hip and liberal and assuage some of their white guilt (or if the editors are POC, they’re just publishing their friends). We’re not far from hearing “the straight white male poet is the true minority”—I assume it’s been said and I’ve just been lucky enough to miss it.
Many in these conversations have asked about blind submissions, as though these allow the editor to put their focus on the work and not on the author bios. Blind submissions are a fig leaf, an exercise in deniability used by people who don’t want to do the hard work of having a diverse journal. I think the theory behind them came from a good place, but they don’t work the same way as say, blind auditions for orchestras do, because writing is not performance the way playing a trumpet is. And they can do some good in book contests where money is at stake, though I think strict rules about who can enter such contests are a much better way to deal with those potential conflicts.
In poetry, as in pretty much every other walk of life, there is no greater advantage to publication and all that follows from it than being a straight white male. Yes, even in the creative world, for all our reputation as an open liberal stronghold, straight white male is the default against which all other writing is contrasted. Straight white males are “literature,” while women and writers of color and gay writers are all shunted off into their own subsections, with a token few allowed into the large category as a way of pushing back charges of sexism or racism or homophobia. If you’re a straight white male, to adopt the name of a marginalized minority is crass and offensive. To do so and think it gives you an advantage in publishing is stupid and insulting to the editors who are mostly doing this work for nothing or for very little pay.
If I sound impatient with Hudson and those who defend him, that’s because I am. I would rather be writing poems or reading submissions, grading papers or changing diapers. You read that right—I would rather be elbow deep in baby shit than even thinking about this nonsense—I have too much to do in this life without having to point out to my fellow straight white males that we’re not as clever as we think we are, and we certainly aren’t oppressed in any way by political correctness. But I and people like me have to stand up and say this stuff, because the clever straight white males who are howling so loudly won’t listen to the women or people of color or members of the LGBT community. They might not listen to me either, but I can’t be as easily dismissed as others can, because I’m a straight white male. I’d rather not have that privilege, but as long as I do, I’m going to use it for stuff like this.
36 responses
He’s manufacturing his own proof here. I would like to see these meticulous records of his to know (1) how many successful submissions have been made under his REAL name; and (2) how many unsuccessful submissions have been made under his FAKE name. I’m inclined to agree with you that persistence pays off — and this is tilted in favor of the period after which he uses his alias. But, finally, anything is possible in this nation that has never recovered psychologically or morally from the Civil War. Even from sensitive liberal white poets.
Thank you thank you. Well put.
Thank you Brian.
If you google “Michael Derrick Hudson” you will find that he has gained considerable publications in “mainstream literary” magazines under his name Michael Derrick Hudson. Thus, he truly did not have trouble gaining publication to begin with…
Except that in Alexie’s response, he says the name DID make a difference.
I have been a senior poetry reader at Prairie Schooner, and I can tell you that while we have long had a commitment to representing diversity in our selections, there is no way on the planet that this poem was selected based on the author’s name. Sure, might have given it a second look given how few submissions we get from Asian authors, but otherwise, even the suggestion that this is how a top-ranked literary magazine normally does business is not only offensive, but wholly inaccurate. (Of course cannot vouch for the the rest of the author’s contentions, but on this end of it I’m solid.)
Also really like your suggestion for re-naming the Year’s Best series!
Sorry, should have said, how few submissions we normally get relative to subs from authors of other backgrounds, just going by names, of course.
From the editor: http://blog.bestamericanpoetry.com/the_best_american_poetry/2015/09/like-most-every-poet-i-have-viewed-the-publication-of-each-years-best-american-poetry-with-happiness-i-love-that-poem-je-1.html#comment-6a00e54fe4158b883301bb086e9bc7970d
I am relatively a “newbie” or a “youngblood” to the apparently raucous world of poetry magazine publishing, and I find this poet’s strategy quite telling regarding the filters poets have to go through before receiving even one smidgen of credibility as a craftsman. Years ago, I chose to check the local university (SMU) to see what an MFA would do for me, but when I learned the price, complaining I had sticker shock is an understatement. Since I worked as a clerk in one of the best research libraries in this region, and since my boss had been president of the ALA (she chose poetry for the collection), and since one of the librarians had graduated from Oxford, I decided to take the inexpensive way, get help with a reading list and learn for myself. From what I’ve gathered the actual advantages of the MFA is somewhat controversial, but I’ve always been of the school that my writing would actually teach me once I got that “eagle eye” in which one gains a critical understanding of one’s work. I’ve gotten nice notes with rejections, have managed to land a poem or two in reasonably well-regarded journals, but in reality I see poetry publication in terms of what I deem “the dog biscuit theory” of publishing. You send-in a poem anticipating publication, the dog biscuit. If you’re Ted Kooser, all you have to do is show-up on some literary magazine’s porch and you’ll get your biscuit immediately. Why big names (I am not intending to detract from Kooser’s craft) continue to hog the mic is something that loses me. I think I will submit my poetry under the name DAHLEEK-PUHLEEK-DAHLEEK-DULACK and inform editors I am from Mars. Anything for that biscuit….
Thank you, Brian — for a deeply intelligent, sensitive, thoughtful response.
Looked at Brian’s bio just to check it out. I did not know Drake was also a university.
Thanks, Brian. I’m also wondering why Hudson assumes it’s the name change that got him in. There are so, so many talented people in the world, so publishing is often a challenging and heartbreaking business. This looks like a time when persistence finally paid off.
wooh, a tricky subject but another aspect of the so-called ‘best’ anthologies is that about 2/3 of the included poets will be fairly recognisable – does this mean their poems are the among the ‘best’? not necessarily – one reason could be that the well-known poets can often be editors or guest editors themselves and to omit their poem might merit a similar response when one of those poets get their turn at the wheel – perhaps an ‘ethnic’ name could hold sway if that poet is not recognisable and the editor feels they’re not going to offend their peers by including an unknown and not a rival – anonymity, while not perfect, is still the best method: the poem, not the poet
anyone submitting work to a journal has one clear priority above all else: to get that work published.
so with that in mind, how could anyone who puts their heart on the line for publication ever claim to have a balanced, unbiased view of editorial practices or policies? get real.
it’s okay to want attention and space, but it’s not okay to whine and bitch about it. the whole competitive jostling ordeal is really difficult. do these people even read the works of others, in that journal they’re so keen to see their own names in? I have my doubts.
anyway, why would you ever want to be published somewhere you’re not welcomed in? what’s with this overpowering urge to control editors and their choices? anyone can set up a blog and manage their own publicity, go do it already.
emancipate unrecognized geniuses, right. to harness actual social inequalities for achieving fame and recognition is such a self-centered and hypocritical maneuver, this is really just astounding.
Brian, would you care to respond now that Alexie, the editor of the BAP, confirmed that in fact he did choose this poem because of the apparent Chinese name? It seems to undermine your entire thesis.
Adrian the senior poetry reader at Prairie Schooner says:
“there is no way on the planet that this poem was selected based on the author’s name. Sure, might have given it a second look given how few submissions we get from Asian authors …”
Does Adrian not see that that second look is – necessarily – the reason any given poem didn’t go into the reject pile and stay there?
Sherman Alexie admitted to rampant white and brown cronyism. While I fully acknowledge white male privilege in our culture and fight against it, I don’t do it in a manner that dissolves the adequacy and legitimacy of white males. The fight for equality is much more complex and difficult than the simpleton left/right paradigm has made it. It takes real gusto to side with no one. To point finger at racism’s hideous diversity. But I contend most who wage war against injustice do so for personal gain. Like joining a club. It’s fashionable now to write articles like these. Strategic. Safe. Cliche. I applaud Alexie because of his raw confessional manner by which he exposed the truth behind clicks in poetry.
*cliques* (Forgive my kindle’s auto fill)
I’m not a poet (thank God), but I have spent a lot of time wondering about what the heck the “standards” are for getting a poem into one of these anthologies of the “best” poems. Or short stories, or abstract 20th century art. The first time I went to MOMA I got a terrible headache and had to rest before dinner; I thought it was the art, but in retrospect I could have also just been hungry.
(1) Some will no doubt disagree, but the fact is, that in matters aesthetic, there are *no universally agreed upon standards,* and, so long as you aren’t a Kantian (I am) the subjectivity of art is a given. The comments above are mean and distrusting (is he lying about his record-keeping??) defensive (this surely never happens in my journal!!) and argumentative (since there are so, so many talented artists out there, who is to say a name matters…). Case in point.
(2) An anectote: I have a close friend in a major American city whose name is Hector. Hector is a fabulous guy with a fabulous education and was applying for grad schools and jobs simultaneously. He sent out 200 resumes identical to each other, except that he used the name “John” on half of them. You can guess what happened: John got a good handful of nice interviews, whereas Hector got none. He didn’t whine and cry about his craft, because it was patently obvious from the start that a Latino man’s chances were, well, crap.
(3) Why don’t you poets just use blind submissions — for journals, conferences, publications?? We in philosophy — and other disciplines — have been doing this for decades, and it seems to eliminate much of what I call the tragic Greek hair-pulling of your anxiety.
P.S. Oh, and Brian, I rather think that you would, indeed, prefer to keep that privilege.
Michael,
Except it doesn’t undermine my thesis, unless you believe that Alexie is the universe when it comes to these sorts of decisions. Just because Alexie gave this poem a second look because the author seemed to be Asian doesn’t mean the Prairie Schooner editors did that. In fact, given that “Yi-Fen Chou”‘s first appearance in Prairie Schooner was in 2009 (http://prairieschooner.unl.edu/blog/prairie-schooner-and-pseudonyms) I’d say it’s way more likely that those editors gave that poem consideration because of the poet’s history with the journal than because of the Asian name.
Cynthia,
As to your third point, I’d like to expand on the problem with blind submissions in poetry specifically. I think blind submissions provide the illusion of objectivity, with some exceptions. They’re incredibly effective in musical performance auditions, where women in particular have historically been shut out of the brass sections of orchestras for example. And they’re pretty good at making sure that judges don’t pick winners based on bios alone.
But if you’re trying to build a diverse journal, they’re pretty useless. Now if diversity in your pages doesn’t matter, then blind submissions give you cover in case your journal is full of a particular group–I’ve seen them used that way over and over again by editors who say “I’m focused on the quality of the work, not on the bios of the writers.” But it seems unlikely to me that it’s a coincidence that these editors seem to mostly be white males who are publishing mostly white males. Anecdotes are not data, I know, but I have a fair few years of experience at this.
I give credit to the poem’s author for sheer moxie. While it would be “cliche” to consider this episode with Prairie Schooner and ABP a “teaching moment”, I find it saddening that the author under his real name had trouble placing the poem, and a number of other poems. The author has shown-up both the literary magazine and the best-of collection–as well as amply illustrating a number of important caveats poets should consider when submitting. The first, of course, is that all-too-often it is who you know, not what you have accomplished. The second lesson is easy to see: It is much better for one to consider oneself a poet if one has the letters MFA stamped on one’s forehead, and even better still if one has some sort of position at a university. I mention the latter mainly because all one has to do in perusing any journal is to take note of all the professors who pass the censors while “regular people” who work at, say, a factory or a law firm, almost never appear, perhaps because so many universities require professors to publish as part of their deal with the university. I’d much rather read a poem written by an authentic human being who isn’t attached to the cloister of a university than one written by a professor out to prove his/her philosophical street-cred. Literary politics, at least for me, is for the birds. If I have to play games in order to publish, I think I’d rather be a prostitute.
Addie,
Michael Derrick Hudson has had very little problem getting published under his own name. He’s published widely and in some high profile journals, including Poetry Magazine. He didn’t “have to do this” in order to get published. He chose to adopt yellowface while he was publishing simultaneously under his real name.
Perhaps I was only trying to divine a reason for the choice of a pseudonym. Perhaps the author simply decided to try out a pen name. There is no law against that. If Prairie Schooner or ABP is embarrassed, it is affected embarrassment, not real embarrassment. I’ve always believed that sometimes poets and those who pander to them are a little too surreal to believe. For example, I went to Boston Review’s Facebook page. There I found a link to a poem. Curious, I read the poem–which was (at least to me) a mawkish “postmodern” blend of poem/poem review, and decided to comment to that effect. Apparently, the editor replied and asked if I understood it. I replied that I did, and that I didn’t think it was all-that-good. For the editor, this was unfair to the writer–who then herself responded to the effect she was so embarrassed. The supposed editor then responded to inform me that the poets in this world are “very sensitive” and that we should be careful to protect their feelings. I can understand that poets are sensitive people, but seriously, they’re not an endangered species incapable of defending themselves. The entire incident (minor in my thinking) was profusely blown-up into this “let’s protect the sensitive poet” even though I’d experienced nothing but rejection from a number of magazines, perhaps because I simply do not know the “right people”.
Personally, I like literary provocateurs. Has literature in America so descended into affect and mannerism that such a thing is an embarrassment? Not in the real world, it isn’t.
The poem in question involves just an old-fashioned authorship hoax, something that traces its pedigree at least as far back as Chatterton and MacPherson. And literary hoaxes are interesting tools that can have great power, viz. Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds” broadcast, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” (one of the deadliest), Forest Carter’s “Education of Little Tree” and many, many others: see http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1868982_1868981_1868978,00.html and http://www.history.com/news/historys-most-famous-literary-hoaxes.
In comparison, this poem ain’t much and is unlikely to have a lot of impact. Tempest in a teapot. But Alexie’s response is far more honest that Spear’s critique.
Man, people on the right will do anything they have to to excuse cops’ using inappropriate levels of physical and incarcerational violence and people on the left will continue to deny anti-white racism and discrimination no matter how much evidence is produced.
Also, this is no more “yellowface” than female writers like A.L. Kennedy or A.M. Homes using initials to be taken more seriously.
And then of course we can talk about Bob Dylan and Racquel Welch and Fred Astaire and the long history of bleeding the “ethnicity” out of one’s name in order to get ahead. Nowadays it’s the opposite, change your name and give yourself as much “ethnicity” or gender or LGBT standing or trans-status or whatever is in vogue this week to get a more “fair shake” from the far left establishment that runs publishing and universities. You want to get your memoir published, be an abuse-survivor or a “marginalized” person. If you want tenure as the post-colonialist in the English department, change your name from Lew “Conrad” Alcindor to Kareem “Said” Abdul-Jabbar.
Naive debate at so many levels. Where to begin? Such shallow ideas about, and definitions of, identity and how it intersects with the exchange of thought and ideas. Such a massive blind spot about what poetry is, who produces and profits from it. Ever heard of hip-hop, rap, spoken word even? Um, not only is that poetry as much as this BAP stuff, but it has far more in common with the broader shared human history of poetry–especially poetry created and enjoyed voluntarily, instead of produced and consumed inside the prescribed menu of the brainwashing process known as compulsory education. Care to survey or catalogue the creator and/or audience demographics, production means and ends, the content and stylistic genealogy of THAT poetry? Care to include a comparison of the impact, verve and, dare I say, value of that branch of poetry with the subject of this current storm in a teacup? Colonization? I’d say most parties to this debate have surrendered to their own colonization by the power structure that they’ve bought into with their academic-literary careerism. And in turn they are participating, under the masquerade of embittered rivalry, in the continuation, reinforcement and even expansion of the viral power structure they serve, not unwittingly, but perhaps witlessly. Poetry depending for its legitimacy on getting into the sanctorum of such an anthology as BAP, approved by this cliquey priesthood or that one, according to this orthodoxy or that orthodoxy, is self-enfeebled, or at least those poets are–so it’s comical or just pathetic to see this debate primp itself as focused on any kind of empowerment. Poetry, poets or people who pursue empowerment by surrendering to these kinds of orthodoxies are undermining, not empowering, themselves and everyone else. What’s the benefit of corralling your thoughts into poems harvested ADM-style for these purposes? A nice little job in some corner of academia? That’s the antithesis of freedom of thought, or feeling. Poetry, and people, should be more free, daring and dynamic. This is just so much misdirected energy cross-dressing as righteousness, but doing bugger all to right any significant wrongs. Go write on a toilet wall, or tag a bus stop with your most urgent thought. Or go be a trade union rep for underpaid workers doing hazardous jobs. Or just extend a hand or a hug or a haiku directly to a friend or stranger who could use one. But for fuck’s sake stop complaining about who gets into the country club. No poet (or self-respecting person of any other type of identity construction) should ever want to become a member of any country club that would accept him or her (and thereby turn them into an alibi while changing nothing). This shit is not what’s blowing up Syria, or our own neighborhoods, but the mentality that would obsessively argue about distracting shit like this IS. Poets, my ass!
Be careful, V.B. Zarr, we don’t want our literary Victorians to go into a swoon….
After reading the NYTimes article about this teacup tempest, I read the newspaper’s summary of the poem. Oddly enough, when I became a poet at age 12, I did not realize I had also signed-up to become an expert in existential philosophy, subjective phenomenology, Derrida et al. What this faux identification of poetry with philosophy is doing is forcing poetry into a reliance of expertise. As Laurie Anderson recently wrote: “Only an expert can solve the problem”. I have plenty of imagination, have read Heidegger and other philosophers, but poetry is not about philosophy. Being chained to the beach by Lilliputian “experts” is simply not my idea of being a poet in 21st Century America. I’m beginning to think “outlaw poetry” is more in touch with reality than is the poetry movement that seeks to segregate poets along lines of expertise.
The self-pitying notion that whites only aid whites, and so therefore POC must only aid POC is untrue. The Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore was honored in his own time a century ago, winning a Nobel prize. Langston Hughes might have spent his career in obscurity, if not for white poet Vachel Lindsay using his influence to promote Hughes’ work. There would have been no blues revival in the 1960s if not for white field archivists busily rediscovering the bluesmen of the Twenties and Thirties. And so on. Mr. Alexie’s insistence on identity politics just reinforces the impression that poetry no longer has any standards, and may be safely ignored by the wider public.
Brian Spears writes, “f I sound impatient with Hudson and those who defend him, that’s because I am. I would rather be writing poems or reading submissions, grading papers or changing diapers. You read that right—I would rather be elbow deep in baby shit than even thinking about this nonsense—I have too much to do in this life without having to point out to my fellow straight white males that we’re not as clever as we think we are, and we certainly aren’t oppressed in any way by political correctness”
I have to tell you, Brian, if you are getting in “elbow deep,” you are doing it wrong.
Ha! I have twin baby girls, James, and they are prodigious poopers. Sometimes it feels elbow-deep.
Brian, you should stick to poetry and not statistics because that’s not how it works. To begin with there are plenty of full Caucasians with ethnic names, and vice versa. In addition, I wholly believe since the publishers themselves are even less diverse that published writers, they don’t hire diverse editors. Further more I think they are are as equally at fault if not more so than this guy. why? because I know many of these people and they are lazy. The diversify by a name and then pat themselves on the back for publishing diverse authors. Have you been to AWP book fair? “X collection is so great we publish over 30% females and other minorities.” Yup. It’s been said constantly, right to my face. that’s their selling point. Probably because I’m white and By me buying and reading it proves how accepting I am of diversity. But it doesn’t. It’s just lazy. Even if they weren’t really all white men in disguise.
Janet,
A big part of the problem with this argument is that there aren’t any statistics for anyone–myself included–to refer to. I would love for some social scientist to do a study of this issue, like what VIDA does with gender, only more so, so that we would have a baseline of sorts to start with. We don’t have that–we have lots of anecdote and precious little data.
It would be a shame if this whole hullabaloo didn’t compel readers unfamiliar with his work to seek out poems by (one of) Fernando Pessoa’s (many) heteronyms.
Here’s Robert Polito’s excellent and pithy primer on this remarkable writer:
http://bombmagazine.org/article/5287/fernando-pessoa
This person similarly scammed ploughshares, but in Non-Racist fashion:
http://tedhashberryman.com/2015/09/15/best-american-hoaxery/
Just as long as he didn’t use any homonyms to get his work into LGBT anthologies.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.