Conferences or MFA?

Since 2006 I've gone to a few writing conferences.  On the one hand, there is a real sense of community at these events and the instructors are usually brimming with good advice.  On the other, they take place for a very limited amount of time and as a result, may not provide all that's needed to improve.  Seeking an MFA, low-residency or full time, probably does provide a sense of community with instruction over time that might make a real difference.  The drawback of an MFA is the amount of time and money needed to pursue this degree (and the unlikeliness it will end in decent work).  In my case, I haven't been able to pursue a MFA for various reasons, and I've more or less been o.k. with conferences despite their limited usefulness.  I hope I've gotten better (although I haven't really published anymore).  I do, wonder, though, whether I would make some true leaps in my writing with the MFA, or whether I'm partially brainwashed into thinking so.  I'm sure everyone has different kinds of experience with this.   

Working on Revisions of Poems

One of the things I find hardest to do is revising my work.  I've read essays and interviews by poets who say they find this one of the most rewarding elements of writing poetry.  And of course, many poets say without revising you just won't get published.  I agree with its importance.  I've asked fellow writers for ideas and made attempts to work on my work.  Unfortunately, I've just found it near impossible in many instances.  Additionally, most of the poems I've published have been lightly revised, if at all.  It lets me get away with the bad habit of not making an effort.  I have yet to be able to cut "my darlings" in the way I'd like, or get the proper distance to see what's wrong with the poem.  I've heard, though, it's good to re-type your poems, and editing that way.  Or cutting up lines of the poem and assembling it in a different order.  I'm sure there are many other methods.  Whatever works, works, is what I say.  Feel free to share your own.

Electronic vs. Print Submissions

Electronic submissions, for me, are the way to go.  A few years ago, I sent submissions through the mail, but no longer.  Though there are several great journals that only take print submissions, I've found it's much more cumbersome than electronic methods.  I wonder if I'm missing out on some chances, though.

I think of the pros for electronic being 1) ease of submitting 2) less paper/better for environment 3) more responsive journals via e-mail.  The cons are that everyone is sending work electronically, making for a much larger pool of submissions to choose from and worse chances for publication.  Additionally, there is the possibility that one might be less careful with electronically submitted work, because it's so easy to send.

The pros for print publication are 1) slower but more careful submission 2) some editors seem to like it 3) may not be as easily lost as an e-mail.  Sure, it's cumbersome, but it's great to come home and check the mailbox for possible acceptances or rejections.  The problem, of course, is postage and expense.  If you're trying to save money, electronic submissions becomes the way to go, whatever the advantages of print submissions are.  I may go back to sending print submissions eventually.  But for now, electronic is the way to go.

Mission Statement

Hi!  Welcome to The Intermediate Poet.  I am a poet who's published here and there, but I need to work and improve to reach the level where I can publish a book (or chapbook).  I'm hoping to post at least twice a week about the struggles I'm facing with my writing, what I'm reading, what successes I have, and any other tips, ideas, or suggestions I can come up with.  I also may have an autobiographical interlude or two, especially as it involves my writing.  I look forward to hearing from you all in the days to come.