On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Ric's Wesleyan anthology looks likely to be very useful in the US.  People of
> my generation, especially, will benefit.  So there remains a second job of
> transatlantic information to be done -- co-operation between the young.

- The possible or probable shortcomings of "Other", were I to spell 'em
out now, might lead one to conclude that it's no bloody good at all. 
There's no way, for example that it can cover any one part of the field
adequately - only 300- or-so pp; only 50-or-so poets - figure for yourself
the extent of exclusions and omissions. Nevertheless, we'd say, (well we
would, wouldn't we) that we've nodded in most of the appropriate
directions, produced what could at least be a basis for further
exploration - there, here, anywhere in fact. A particular weakness would
be in the "younger poets" heading, which isn't to say that everyone's in
their dotage quite, but that - predictably - the teaching anthology format
would require that most of the contributors had a track-record of sorts. I
think there'll be a couple of surprises though... I for one would welcome
the young US/UK poets anthology, particularly if was based on real
co-operation where that's taking place.

> I feel there would have to be a very small editorial team (or two editors with
> an editorial board of advisers) with a balance of gender and ethnicity,
> including both British and US input.

- Agreed - and linked from the outset to commissioning publishers on both
sides, prepared to work together... the mottram/edwards/d'aguiar/alnutt
anthology might provide a model, in that each editor had an area of
responsibility - thus avoiding the inevitable downside of committee
editing. An advisory editorial board would certainly help in the "placing"
of such a project with publishers. 

> But awareness of Brit po is very low in the US and has been formed by various
> promoters from both countries who have been working out of smallish corners
> and presenting limited views of what's going on.  Hence the need for more
> publishing co-operation without the grinding of axes.

- I'm sceptical generally of the idea of the Universal Objective Editor : 
all my favourite anthologies, the ones which have taught me and continue
to teach me most, have shown clearly the predelictions of the editors.
Where there is no grinding of axes, there is, very probably, no sharp
edge... As for the perceptions of Britpo in the US, obviously, we'll be
interested to see what the reception of OTHER is: the two previous
occasions when I've been involved in putting together selections of
UK/Irish poetry for the US (both magazines) have both produced feedback of
the Wow! I never knew... sort, which is gratifying until one considers
that it was, in some cases, the SAME INDIVIDUALS who were saying
wowtheyneverknew on both occassions... NB: slow learners thrive both sides
of the pond...

> I'm very sympathetic to Tony Frazer's wish that Australian/NZ/Canadian poetry
> be included because I know what I'd think if I were from those nations.  But
> wouldn't this make a first anthology unwieldy, muddly, and of real service to
> none of the countries?  A later project?  Internationalism, yes.  But the
> anthology, even as presently projected, would be an editing nightmare!

- well, utopian even, and then why not? Seem to remember M.Perloff on this
list some time back saying that the day will come when it's no longer
necessary to "distinguish" britpo from uspo from ozzipo etc, the real
distinctions coming between the KINDS of poetry. I'd say that time is
here, if we say it is, and the point is not to serve the countries, but
the poetries. If one got to the stage where one had established
editors/publishers with the right kind of credentials (i.e wide vision for
the former; committment from the latter)  in two places, why not procede
to others as far as is logistically possible, and be prepared to bale out
in the interests of practicality?

RC





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%