My question was sent off before your answer arrived.
But I think you're quite wrong about the importance of archives. Your view assumes that the only people who care about and read poetry are academics. That is just not the case. The chance of any poet's work surviving is, as you say, slim, but in the absence of any interest or publication, no archival collection is going to make any difference.
> On 2 Sep 2016, at 14:00, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with you, David.
>
> By the way, it’s a "sad" reality that if ones work has not been archived, there is little chance of any future attention being given to it; such is the importance of such archives for academics to use for their research. Without becoming such a footnote (or possibly more) in such research, any future remembrance is slim.
>
> It’s healthy that people who have taken part in this discussion are indifferent to their work (and themselves) being remembered, and that those who have had their work archived have done so for purely practical reasons, such as extra-income or to de-clutter their homes.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------Original Message-----------------
>
> David Bircumshaw wrote:
>
>
> That's not what really happens Peter. I'd like to think it was so but no. You write and you network is more like the truth.
|