Thanks for your considered response, Keston.  I don't have a lot of time
but briefly:

1)  I don't agree that eclecticism is "unambiguously an exalted attribute
among people interested in literature," as not only my imagined respondent
but also you (below) would seem to indicate.

2)  I don't imagine that such a project would necessarily "subvert" one's
preferences.  I might have an order of preferences--this bottle of merlot,
say, over that one, but the second bottle might find its pleasures and uses
too.  On the other hand, I simply won't tolerate most sangria.  So the
Wendy Cope reference won't wash, so to speak (though I'm sure there's
gallons of sangria and even Boone's Farm going down happy gullets tonight).
If one found something to be of absolutely no value--or of no value beyond
some prospective or possible comparison--and then went ahead and included
it anyway, that would be to subvert oneself. I'm not that suicidal even in
the thick of the fray (cris' post just now coming in but still undigested.)

2a)  We could contest the extent to which capitalism (and as compared to
what?) is INHERENTLY or ACTUALLY "eclectic."  Let's not, though, we've all
got work to do.

3)  I do find purpose and value in "historiographical" projects.  This is
part of the pleasure and burden of ONE of my vocations.

4)  I do not find that you have the respect for consumers you profess having.

5)  Questions of tactics--of pragmatism and so forth--will have to wait for
another day.

6)  I agree that the context in which a work appears HELPS shape its
apprehension.  But no book is the ONLY book; work might have manifold
versionings; one book can point to another; etc. etc. etc.. .

all best and in haste,
Keith



>I was very interested to read your excerpts and restrained comment Keith,
>partly because it reminds us how editors still regard their function as
>having some historiographical purpose and value, but also because it might
>provide an introit into a related discussion.  Would list members agree
>that 'eclecticism' has become unambiguously an exalted attribute among
>people interested in literature?  Might it not also be argued, that it is
>irresponsible to subvert one's own considered particular likes and
>dislikes, admirations and antipathies, only to defer with reputable
>professional finesse to a scheme of inclusion that is validated from the
>outset by being conceived under the flag-aspect of 'eclecticism'?  Why
>select or publish what you don't admire?  There are of course reasons for
>doing this; but I don't believe that eclecticism needs urgently to be
>exemplified in our present circumstances.  This seems rather like setting
>out to elide traditions commercially, that of their own intent have
>laboured to emphasize their theoretic diremption.  The irony implicit in
>such a project all dissipates as soon as it reaches W.H. Smith.
>Capitalism is intrinsically eclectic.
>
>
>Personally I believe that the commercial context in which a work appears
>is crucial to the ways in which it might be apprehended.  For this reason,
>I'd never put a poem of mine in (say) the Times Literary Supplement,
>unless it were conceived programmatically to be of an overtly
>propagandistic appeal (which surely it could be).  Likewise I'd not want
>my poetry pasted up alongside Wendy Cope's.  Because despite the fey
>chime I care about it agonizingly, and because de facto hers is crap.  To
>let a reader browse from leaf to leaf and come to this conclusion for
>herself, is not a liberty I'd be keen to promote (particularly not if it'd
>cost her 12.99 or so).
>
>So I have to say, I think such an anthology would create at least as much
>tension among the less marketed poets whom generously it would seek to
>represent, as among the punters for all the usual shelf-fillers.  And I
>think that's right -- kind of an out of town supermarket of a book, and
>why should such a thing be produced?  To make things easier for consumers?
>I say this quite without contempt.  I like consumers and think reading
>shouldn't be made easier for them.  When I look back at the poetry of
>previous centuries, for example, it is precisely the separated appearances
>of different types of production that helps me to understand more
>accurately the practical poetic trends of the period, and to gain more
>acute insights into the kinds of cultural production that authors wished
>to be engaged in.  Perhaps this anthology would propose to transgress
>those demographics; but in the service of whom, other than present
>browsers and a publishing house?
>
>
>
>k




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