Sorry David but I agree with Jamie here - it's so obvious it hardly needs saying. All 'canon formation' is a complicated mix of social, cultural and literary responses made even more complex by personal ambitions, grudges, loyalties, subjectivity and institutional self-interest. I find Fieled's take on it both simplistic and idiosyncratic, a desire to find some sure ground that just isn't there.
  
On 17 Dec 2017, at 14:41, David Lace wrote:

Fieled’s point is not really about prizes per se but about “canon formation”, and what’s considered poetically important in any given society/culture in history. He’s saying that many poets who were thought to be important by their contemporaries are now seen as being insignificant. That seems historically obvious to me and shouldn't be annoying so many of you.