Thanks for your kind welcome.
As for my opinion on OUP poets, I think it will be apparent from the
lengthy discussion of the currently accepted British poetry elite in my
article "From Scotland to Suburbia" in Chapman 87. Thought I don't
there deal with the Oxford Poets series in itself, that series is
probably the single greatest source of the numerous specific authors and
titles mentioned, so anyone who reads the article and is familiar with
the
series will find there a detailed answer to the question you've asked
me.
Since most people on this list who are interested can probably get
ahold of that issue of Chapman, I won't repeat here the details of what
I said in it. I'll only state my general feeling that the real
function
of something like the Oxford Poets series is to use the prestigious
name of Oxford to give a quasi-official stamp of approval to those poets
who have risen to the top of the literary/academic establishment by
obediently following its rules. As such, it acts as the lynch pin of
a rewards system which forces the rest of us to either write like the
Oxford Poets or languish in obscurity on the fringe. That would be a
bad thing even if what most of the Oxford Poets write were good, which I
don't think it is.
>Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 21:22:33 +000
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Wilcommen, bienvenue, welcome
>From: Chris Emery <[log in to unmask]>
>To: british-poets <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Hi Jon
>
>nice to see you've mellowed in your absence :-) Which bits of the OUP
>list do you think suck? I thought this a good list myself . . . and
>worth preserving.
>
>
>Best
>
>Chris
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|