That slightly tedious excursus on Faber was meant to illustrate the obvious fact that it’s essentially one person who makes the call on what to include on any list, hence fallible, inspired, partial, whatever. It’s a well paid and prestigious job so I won’t squander any sympathy on the occupant, but it’s not a job I’d want myself, or even be confident of taking on, impeccable taste notwithstanding.
Editors are often remembered and judged as much for what they’ve rejected, where that comes to light, such as Eliot with Bunting, as for what they’ve accepted. Only rarely a shining act of discovery. Elio Vittorini’s rejection of Il gattopardo for first Mondadori then Einaudi as ‘piuttosto vecchiotto’ - rather old-fashioned - is often contrasted with Bassani’s prescient and enthusiastic acceptance of the novel for Feltrinelli. But the story with Vittorini is more complicated - the novel submitted in the first instance was incomplete, and he certainly saw many of its merits. And you can imagine how the political temperature of the literary world of the time (1957) would have militated against this work on the ancien regime by a Sicilian prince...
What I’m saying is how easy it would be to overlook something outstanding and to take on something ephemeral.
Any editors here - Tony? - who regret missing out on something excellent or taking on something useless? In the latter case it would be inappropriate to name names, but still I’m asking about a change in the editor’s estimate of a work’s merit.
Jamie
Sent from my iPad
> On 31 Jan 2018, at 13:22, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I meant to add, from Keegan’s time, Mark Ford, whose poems I’ve come to admire more and more.
> And a footnote about O’Hara who was loved by many of the poets of my generation I hung around with. I’d say in the succeeding two generations his influence has only grown, so much as to occlude even Ashbery, and, sadly, Schuyler who I came to much later and now find myself more drawn to.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 31 Jan 2018, at 13:09, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Drew,
..............
>>
>> I still think the special resentment occasioned by Faber is based on a hierarchical model that no longer applies and hasn’t done perhaps since the days of Monteith. After him, Faber had Raine who essentially shut the doors on the next generation of British poets with the exception of Michael Hofmann (for which he deserves only minor credit as he was generally acclaimed before publication). I would say Hofmann is one of the finest poets of my generation and one who certainly ‘matters’ to me. To be fair Raine deserves credit for taking on Christopher Logue’s brilliant Homeric enterprise (if I’m right about that).
>> Then, pursuing the Faber theme, Reid, who might have been expected to follow the Raine line opened the doors a lot wider, with among others Armitage, Paterson, Riordan, all fine poets and not in the least identikit in my view. Keegan had his own tastes: Alice Oswald, another poet who has occasioned a great deal of interest and popular admiration, again in my view justly. Though far less conspicuous I have a high regard for Eilean Ni Chuilleanain (no accents on this) from his time. It’s early days for Hollis, the present incumbent, but as far as I can see there’s been a fair amount of excitement around Sam Riviere and the newly assumed Hannah Sullivan and Sophie Collins.
>> But really the whole notion of some kind of team one has to support or defend is utterly alien to me, for the reasons I’ve given. As for bookshops, my favourite Barcelona one is full of Carcanet volumes and not a single Faber poet - maybe the editor’s Spanish connections? But in Britain, apart from a few ‘best sellers’ on the list I haven’t noticed any great prevalence of Faber over Bloodaxe or Carcanet or Picador.
>> This is getting long and boring and too bureaucratic, but I’m sure you can follow what I’m saying.
>>
>> Jamie
>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2018, at 08:43, Drew Milne <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Jamie,
>>>
>>> 'that stuff' wasn't meant to be disdainful, just an informal register.
>>>
>>> I think it is obvious why Faber excites ire, because of its historic list and position of cultural significance, not least in bookshops. My question was a serious one, who are the Faber poets that matter to people who read Faber's recent books over the last ten to fifteen years?
>>>
>>> Drew
>>>
>>> ps. if anyone wants evidence of the brutal demolition and denigration of Dylan Thomas, then check out David Holbrook's Llareggub revisted: Dylan Thomas and the state of modern poetry.
|