It really is a matter of what the anthologist sets out to do. Many
anthologies are simply "samples of poets whose work appeals to me at
the moment or who might do me favors." Even these are readable as
something different from simply a checklist of mistakes or decent
choices. An anthology is always smaller than the whole and as such a
construct. These non-labor intensive anthologies are, tho nothing
more, pictures of the world the anthologist wishes to be considered a
part of. Not very useful, in any event, unless the anthologist is
her/himself of special interest (imagine let's say that Yeats had
produced a "faulty" anthology. We'd all want a copy). Other
anthologies attempt to give a portrait of the field, and whether a
given poet is included or not is almost beside the point (tho not to
the poet, of course). Let's say in an anthology of current north
american poetry I included 10 neoformalists. I'd be trying to
represent the range of practice abroad in the land, but I might wind
up leaving out somebody's favorite. Given a not-too-scandalous
display of taste (and within the limitations of taste--none of us are
transparent), it's the conceptualization of the field that's
interesting and that should ideally be the subject of discussion.
Or so it semeth me.
Mark
At 01:57 PM 3/13/2010, you wrote:
>Well, in your case, Mark, I couldnt possibly complain.
>
>But when it involves, say, living poets in our own countries, say,
>then, well, a) if they left 'us' out, that's a big error; & b) if they
>left out poets we think are better than some of the ones they put in,
>well that's a big one, too...
>
>Maybe....?
>
>Doug
>On 13-Mar-10, at 10:59 AM, Mark Weiss wrote:
>
>>We do, kind of. It depends what you think getting it right entails.
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>At 11:22 AM 3/13/2010, you wrote:
>>>Hmmnn, interesting, I guess...
>>>
>>>But then, I start to think, just how much?
>>>
>>>Oh well, anthologists simply never get it right....
>>>
>>>Doug
>>>On 13-Mar-10, at 7:36 AM, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>>>
>>>>Todd Swift's open letter to Roddy Lumsden:
>>>>
>>>>http://toddswift.blogspot.com/2010/03/open-letter-to-roddy-
>>>>lumsden.html
>>>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>Swift's reply to Lumsden's response:
>>>>
>>>>http://toddswift.blogspot.com/2010/03/reply-to-roddy-lumsden.html
>>>
>>>Douglas Barbour
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>>>
>>>Latest books:
>>>Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
>>>http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>>>Wednesdays'
>>>http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
>>>
>>>It is ink
>>>on paper love
>>>
>>> Frank O'Hara
>>
>>Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry (University
>>of California Press).
>>http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>>
>>"Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random House Book
>>of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology so
>>effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the United
>>States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in
>>English. There is nothing else like it." John Palattella in The
>>Nation
>
>Douglas Barbour
>[log in to unmask]
>
>http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
>Latest books:
>Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
>http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>Wednesdays'
>http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
>
>It is ink
>on paper love
>
> Frank O'Hara
Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry (University
of California Press).
http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
"Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random House Book of
Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology so
effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the United
States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in
English. There is nothing else like it." John Palattella in The
Nation
|