> David Bircumshaw wonders if I have anything to say about what is and is
not
> contained in The Firebox. Without wanting to get into a tedious row, I
would
> say 1) I don't know what he means by 'status peddling' and 2) maybe he
> should edit his own anthology. That way he could include or exclude
whatever
> he chooses.
Sean: I realize that your statement above is probably more of an exasperated
response to the (needless) goading of Allen & Bircumshaw than a careful
reply but I can't help but see point #2 as disingenuous. Your own anthology
draws on the resources of your publisher's name & finances & distribution,
and on the mainstream visibility & clout of your name. There's nothing
wrong with this necessarily of course, but let's suppose Bircumshaw tried to
follow your advice & tried to publish an anthology that included work from
both "mainstream" & "small-press" circles of activity, which both he & I
agree would be a more accurate picture of the literary history of the last
several decades. Well, no mainstream publisher would want him as an editor
(no clout), nor would they want to publish the small-press authors in his
selection (too obscure, & likely to work against the book's being adopted as
a textbook); he'd have to turn to a mid-sized or small press. Such a press
would of course be unable to publish such a book as originally envisioned,
as they wouldn't be able to afford to publish piles of mainstream
authors--the publication rights are far too expensive (I speak from
experience). So you'd end up with a rather familiar situation--a small
press publishes a rather modestly produced, small-print-run edition of an
anthology of "experimental" authors & for its trouble gets blasted by
mainstream reviewers for the book's "exclusiveness" (assuming the mainstream
periodicals pay any attention--periodicals such as the LRB, TLS, &c
typically concentrate on a narrow handful of recognized larger presses, esp.
in dealing with poetry).
I think surely you can understand the frustration at the simultaneous
appearance of both your book & the Crawford/Armitage with their virtually
identical canons & claims to inclusiveness & wide representativeness. I'm
not suggesting that you must admire work that you don't--I'd be a fool to
fault you for having quite different tastes from my own!--but would suggest
that the work of an anthologist of a period-based anthology is _not_ purely
to select according to personal taste (I think Spenser's _Shepherd's
Calendar_ is crap but if I edited an anthology of Renaissance poetry I'd
include it); and furthermore you surely must recognize that the cultural
authority wielded by _The Firebox_ by virtue of things often little to do
with the poetry inside (e.g. its coming from a "big" publisher, or its being
edited by a recognized figure from the literary establishment) will make any
nonrepresentativeness the more galling. Bircumshaw simply _can't_ edit a
blockbuster anthology if he feels like it (I mean, he could I suppose
illegally xerox a selection of poetry & pass it around to friends...but
that's hardly what we're talking about). Whereas you _can_. I don't see
this as a grave injustice necessarily but think you should not gloss this
state of affairs over with a casual remark.
all best --N
Nate & Jane Dorward
[log in to unmask]
THE GIG magazine: http://www.geocities.com/ndorward/
109 Hounslow Ave., Willowdale, ON, M2N 2B1, Canada
ph: (416) 221 6865
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|