Poetry anthologies are, in general, the bêtes noires of the literary world. Feared and suffered by many, loved and appreciated by few. Oft criticized, rarely praised, they are the staple of survey literature courses, and the bane of students everywhere. When you write "This is less an insult and as a commentary" I do not know what you mean, because the pronoun referent is unclear and the sentence poorly formed. If you mean you do not wish to insult me, I'm glad of the gesture, but I have to say I find it, to use one of your words, disingenuous. would she be able to choose the right 5 or 6 poems which make him a "good poet" or the right dozen-two dozen which make him a "great"— Well, any number of people have committed suicide without being poets of “personal exposure”; and in the poets named by Dove the causes of suicide other than poetry-writing are numerous (childhood trauma, alcoholism, manic-depressive illness, marital breakdown). Dove’s brisk post hoc, propter hoc diagnosis of these heartbreaking events and their accompanying poems seems oddly imperceptive in a poet. Dove not only decides for many, rather than few, poets. She also decides (except in certain obligatory moments) for the more “accessible” portions of modern lyric. Not to be “accessible” is now to be chastised. Perhaps Dove’s two years as poet laureate helped foster the impression that poetry should be written in “plain American that cats and dogs can read” (Moore, satirizing English views of America). But a poem can communicate while it is still imperfectly understood (said Coleridge), and Dove trusts her readers less than she might.

Regarding your point about Plath and Ginsberg being widely anthologized: surely, if you actually look at the argument I make, you'll see that this re-enforces my argument -- the argument being that Dove makes a big departure from what most anthologies have done. If Plath and Ginsberg had not been widely anthologized, my argument would have been wrong-headed. So I am not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning, if it can be called that, Anonymous. Perhaps Dove’s canvas—exhibiting mostly short poems of rather restricted vocabulary—is what needs to be displayed now to a general audience.” But I'll leave you to your attempts at "redressing the balance." God bless the white American hero. I don't think I "graded" you on slips instead of ignoring what you had to say. There were points ("alide" being one of them) when I did not know what you were trying to say.With regard to speculation: I understand that you feel speculation about HarperCollins is valid. I hope you understand that speculation, presented as such, is generally valid, even when it is not about people with whom we're frustrated, even when it is about people we love. Orion ; Planetarium ; Valediction forbidding mourning ; Twenty-one love poems : XIII ("The rules break like a thermometer--") / Adrienne Rich And while one might, from the outside, say that Penguin should have just tossed in more money into the permissions pile, this simply reveals that the scale of the problem isn't known to those suggesting such a thing. Why should Penguin have to shell out (literally) a fee ten times as large for a particular Ginsberg poem than a Langston Hughes? Why would they insist on holding a permissions gun to Penguin's head even after attempts were made to bring them in-line with other fees, including offering a favored-nations fee? And even while their own authors were urging fees to be lowered so that they could be represented in the anthology? But of course you're wrong about me assuming to speak for her intentions. If you read the post with anything like care, you'll see that I present other people's speculation about her intentions, question some of it, and the present some speculations of my own, never saying they are more than speculations. This is not assuming to speak for those intentions. People are so phobic about poetry and so easy to convert. An ‘aha’ moment often occurs after just one poem; people just need a nudge to incorporate poetry into their lives. Plus, the process of opening poetry up is really fun.

All of this canon talk is sure to stir controversy in coming days, and we'll do our best to keep you abreast! After all, the great fun of anthologies is the trouble they cause. Julia Keller, a cultural critic at the Chicago Tribune, writes: Selecting poets and poems to represent a century of poetry, especially the riotous twentieth century in America, is a massive undertaking fraught with peril and complication. Poet Rita Dove—a Pulitzer Prize–winning former U.S. poet laureate, professor, and presidential scholar—embarked on what became a consuming four-year odyssey. She reports on obstacles and discoveries in an exacting and forthright introduction, featuring striking quotes, vivid profiles, and a panoramic view of the evolution of poetic visions and styles that helped bring about social as well as artistic change […] Dove’s incisive perception of the role of poetry in cultural and social awakenings infuses this zestful and rigorous gathering of poems both necessary and unexpected by 180 American poets. This landmark anthology will instantly enhance and invigorate every poetry shelf or section.”I promise I'm going to go read at least the introduction to the anthology, Michael. Mainly because I enjoy arguing with you. Here are 2 possible preliminary responses to your defense of Vendler's critique : Poetry reading is on the rise in America, according to a recent survey by the National Endowment for the Arts. Former U.S. Poet Laureate Dove takes a fresh look at the canon of 20th century American poetry in this hefty anthology [...] This book is sure to become an important resource for those interested in poetry, and especially students, for decades to come." In the end, I don’t know the reason for the exclusion of Plath. If (and I emphasize this is an if) it has to do with real or perceived insensitivity in her work, I think Rita Dove is well positioned to make explain the point. Indeed, I can think of few people who could do it better (how I wish Reginald Shepherd had lived to write about this!). As my friend in publishing suggests, it would be far better for Dove to provide a full, in-depth explanation for the exclusion than to simply edit Plath out of this representation of American poetry. One might say Dove owes the world this explanation, not only to defend her editorial choices, but to inform us about how Plath looks from where Dove stands.

I note, by the way, that you aren't even willing to concede that the kind of anthology I'd like to see would be a good thing. Getting Sylvia and Louis and Allen into another commercial anthology is more important than getting a few living poets as good as they but not in a certified school of poetry into one (for the first time), I take it. a href="https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rita+Dove%2c+ed.%3a+The+Penguin+Anthology+of+Twentieth-Century+American...-a0293353910 in Just- ; Buffalo Bill's ; Cambridge ladies who live in furnished souls ; next to of course god america i ; somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond ; r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r / E.E. Cummings Access-restricted-item true Addeddate 2022-10-15 18:01:21 Associated-names Dove, Rita Autocrop_version 0.0.14_books-20220331-0.2 Bookplateleaf 0004 Boxid IA40737515 Camera Sony Alpha-A6300 (Control) Collection_set printdisabled External-identifier

Select a format:

Has Dove forgotten the wide channels of newspapers, tabloids, magazines, weekly newsreels, and radio (the latter two available to the illiterate)? Well before the advent of widespread television, the Forties were full of the energetic public dissemination of news by all the mass media named above: How long did it take for the news of Pearl Harbor to spread? Or the news of the death of Roosevelt? The author mentioned above is mere an example of self-inflicted mayhem perpetrated by poets over the years. Suicide manifests itself through a natural extension of self and there really is no mystery, no self-recriminations. A life lived is light too in contrast to the epochal march. What came before, the now and what is future days converge to present the opportunity for self-murder. It is only a question of method, not if, and the suicide’s fatalistic joining with absolutism. Death, a singular death, is a trifle. Suicide as method is inconsequential in its repetitiveness and endlessly leads to the next man waiting in self-murderous solitude. And yes, living a poetry will more than likely lead one to contemplate self-annihilation. Regarding Brown: I began by saying many people have personal favorites they believe Dove should have included.