Editor's Note

 

A little background on the evolution of this issue:

When I first decided to do an issue on gender, I didn't set out to do it quite this way. As a long-time member of the Women's Poetry LISTSERV (Wom-Po), and as an advocate for women's poetry, I had originally thought I might do an all-women's issue. But then, as our book review editor Tom Hunley points out, that's already been done. Again. And again. So I thought to myself, Hmn, how about an all-MEN's issue? I haven't seen one of those. But then again, as Tom points out, not only has this not been done, but I might actually risk being called "insane", or, maybe more likely, just laughed off the stage. But -- Why?

As a female poet, I appreciate and applaud the fact that there are so many opportunities for women to publish with all-female presses & literary journals, and that women's experiences and women's issues have finally been acknoweldged not only as valid but as essential avenues of inquiry. That said, and again, as Tom points out, we all have blind spots about ourselves. 

When the members of the Wom-Po LISTSERV set out to collectively edit an anthology culled from the members of the list, there were no restrictions on form or content -- or gender. Yes, there are plenty of men who participate in Wom-Po; highly accomplished, intelligent, articulate men whose interest in the discussion of women's poetry brought them there. Thus, Letters to the World was conceived. Later, I ran across an anthology called Manthology: Poems on the Male Experience. On the surface, this might appear to some to be a sort of "clubhouse with a 'no girls allowed' sign on the door" (per Tom's review of said anthology), but I suspected it wasn't so, as one of its co-editors was female. According to Tom he was relieved (relieved?) to find that nearly a third of the poets included were women.

Now, Letters to the World is not an anthology devoted to the female experience (as I mentioned, it is all-inclusive and non-restrictive, which means that there is a wide variety of experiences represented) but it did seem a good foil to Manthology. And what these two anthologies have in common is an openness, an inclusiveness. That seemed much more worthwhile than producing something that exluded otherwise impressive work solely based on the gender of its author. But I was still interested in exploring the experiences that we all have that are so firmly rooted in the body as to automatically inform what we write.

Another of my original thoughts for this issue, as it began to develop, was that I would organize the issue based on the different types of experiences: men on the male experience, women on the female experience, men on the female experience, women on the male experience, but my categories began to unravel... the boundaries seemed far less clear.

The word gender, having been derived from the Latin genus, might seem straightforward on its face,

c.1300, from O.Fr. gendre, from stem of L. genus (gen. generis) "kind, sort, gender," also "sex" (see genus)

but as you can see, it has as its cousin the word genre, which, likewise, is:

from Fr. genre "kind, sort, style," from O.Fr. (see gender). Used especially in Fr. for "independent style,"

Kate Evans, in her interview with Kimberly L. Becker, states that, "Style is fluid and permeable... a conscious and unconscious choice. It’s not fixed. It’s not biological."

I agree. So rather than "sort" us out, or rather, box us in, this issue strives to bring together many voices, all speaking about a variety of gendered experiences, informed equally by the genders we are prescribed at birth as well as the ones that we choose for ourselves.

Now, to return to my earlier idea, I'm not completely writing off the possiblity of an exclusively male issue... I mean, it is an all-female editorial board -- oh, yes, well, except for Tom -- but for now, we prefer to keep the club co-ed, and welcome anyone and everyone who ventures forth.

 

Cati Porter