Though still in its infancy, this thread is sure to yield some fireworks (at least I hope so… I like fireworks).
In the red corner, a poet who wants nothing more than to assemble a collection of his works to be made available for friends, family and perhaps the odd stranger who might find them interesting.
In the blue corner, a traditionalist who feels that the right to publish poems should only be derived through the approval of self-appointed gatekeepers, namely editors and academics. Without this stamp of approval, he reasons, publication is an “EMPTY and EXPENSIVE” gesture.
To reduce this to an argument about the ethical nuances of self-publishing is to miss the broader issue, in my view; which is to say, “What is the goal of the writer?”
If it is to become a “poet” in the accepted, mainstream sense—lecturing, being included in anthologies, being discussed by critics, then certainly there are protocol pitfalls in self-publishing that rightly should be avoided.
If, instead, it is merely to have your works read, even by a narrow audience, what harm is there in offering it in a bound volume that can be cracked open for personal enjoyment and placed on a shelf alongside writers who went on bended knee to editors to kiss the ring of the publishing establishment?