Rebecca,
Grateful for the correction:I am obviously wrong then about the extent
of translated US poets. The idea of someone being translated abroad before
being published in their own country, though, doesn't necessarily inspire
confidence in the processes of selection. It may even have to do with the
influence and prestige of the country involved. Take the status of Dutch
for example - in Britain the only Dutch poet I know of (there may of course
be others) who has had a volume publication is Rutger Kopland (born 1934).
The odd Swede of the older generation, no Belgians etc...I'm also sure
there are a number of British older and younger poets (not just Hughes and
Greenlaw)who have had extensive translation abroad, in books as well as
magazines. Interesting as these publishing facts are, and perhaps it's my
fault for having brought them up, my post was directed at a sweeping remark
about how British poetry is perceived abroad, and translation, given the
inevitable jet-lag of reputation, isn't the most reliable of measures. Nor
for that matter is the number of British poets published in the US. What is
the measure I don't myself know - but then it wasn't me that made the
remark.
Your recollection of the learned director's claim that British
poetry "just seemed old-fashioned and not very interesting" would seem to
bear out Peter Riley's claim almost verbatim. I've also heard the same
thing from US readers. But when asked what they had actually read, it
seemed they had noone but Larkin, sometimes noone tout court, in mind. The
received opinion had exempted them from any further inconvenience. Perhaps
Peter Riley meant the US by the rest of the world? In which case he may
well be right.
Best,
Iain.
