Hugh writes:
>
>
I was just suggesting that anthologies aren't a good substitute for the
individual books of a given poet.
>
>
Of course they aren't - that isn't their function. But what they are good at
is precisely what Peter was asking for, offering an introduction to poetry
or an area of it. It seems to me that recommending one poet in response to
such a query is to stake everything on your personal taste and experience.
(If you have to, then surely Jon is right to pick Shakespeare.) But poetry
is plural, and one's first experience of it should be its variety.
Anthologists have a terrible time of it, always lambasted by the critics for
their omissions. But their job is an important one, and for myself I need a
new anthology every now and then to open my eyes to poets, and whole areas
of poetry, I've missed. David's New Poetry (also given a hard time by some
reviewers) was one of those that helped me in that way.
Best wishes
Matthew
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|