Thanks to Ric for his lengthy posting and very convincing defence of the
Finch piece. Speaking as a battered anthology editor, I agree that the
'in/out' game is pointless.
There are some other things which continue to intrigue me about Other so
perhaps I could raise them in the spirit of being interested and wanting to
know more.
1. I am still pretty uneducated and inexpert in the poetries that Other
represents so I would like to know more about what drove the selections. Was
the intention to be representative or did Ric and Peter give themselves the
freedom to choose work they personally liked?
2. Speaking as a young fogey, I would have expected to see more work
included by writers born post-1960 - I counted only 3 - so would like to
know the reason for this gap.
3. When Andrew Duncan reviewed The New Poetry in Angel Exhaust he said
something to the effect that the critical vocabularies used to discuss
mainstream and non-mainstream work were becoming virtually
indistinguishable. Much as I'm loathe to agree with anything he says -
basically because most of the time I can't follow what he's on about - there
do seem to be similarities between the two introductions. What do people
make of this? Is Duncan right or is it just coincidence?
cheers
David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|