Skip to main content

Unusual Suspects?

Roddy Lumsden and Salt have announced - over at Facebook - that they'll be launching a new series, The Best of British Poetry (starting with 2011).  This is modelled on the wildly successful series started by David Lehman back in 1988, when the first guest editor was John Ashbery.  Lehman, as Series Editor, has given the series credibility, and a coherent identity, that plays well off of the various poetics each of the guest editors brings to bear.  And, what editors: Lyn Hejinian, Rita Dove, Paul Muldoon, Louise Gluck, Adrienne Rich, Harold Bloom, Jorie Graham, Robert Bly, AR Ammons, John Hollander - none less than a major figure, in their way.  As Series Editor, Lumsden will have a job on his hand to provide that level of serious continuity, and charmed broad church integrity, which somehow Lehman has pulled off.  Fortunately, Lumsden knows most poets he will need to reach.

However, to truly reach the heights of the American series (there are other versions, say, in Ireland, and Canada, much younger), the guest editors will have to be stellar.  An equivalent level of varied names would be: Geoffrey Hill, Patience Agbabi, Wendy Cope, JH Prynne, Craig Raine, Don Paterson, Alice Oswald, Michael Schmidt, Paul Farley, Carol Ann Duffy, Simon Armitage, Giles Goodland, Fiona Sampson, James Fenton, Philip Gross, Christopher Ricks, etc.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  And oh - what does British mean in this context?  Anyway, let's hope it does well.

Comments

Sheenagh Pugh said…
"Fortunately, Lumsden knows most poets he will need to reach."

Sorry, but I think that would be a fatal way to proceed. Not personal; whoever the editor was, he would have the same problem of knowing what and whom he knows and being unaware of what and whom he does not. Poetry is incredibly fragmented; it's well possible to be famous in Birmingham and unknown in Hull. I know a particular set of poets from my teaching, from geographical connections and from certain magazines. So do we all. I wouldn't mind betting that you and I could each come up with 10-20 names that seemed essential to the one thinking of them but which the other did not know at all.

I don't know how the selection will be done for this but I hope it won't just be by the editor contacting people he knows. For the Forward anthologies magazine editors submit, which at least means the editors are potentially looking beyond their own circle of friends. I can't see a better way of doing it.
Nicholas Liu said…
BAP, a broad church? Are you shitting me? I'm sure Roddy can do a bit better than "equivalent".
EYEWEAR said…
Nicholas, yes, BAP is a broad church - having had editors like Lyn Hejinian, and Donald Hall, is pretty broad. I used the word equivalent for the quality of the potential guest editors, not for Roddy's editorial capabilities - re-read my post. Any British editor would be challenged to maintain for 22 years such a project as BAP has been - it does no one any good to do down such a splendid series.
EYEWEAR said…
Sheenagh, thanks for your comments. I meant that Roddy Lumsden would know all the names of potential guest editors - not all poets who might be included year to year. I agree, the editors will need to roll up sleeves and read from as many of the journals as possible. The BAP model is to consider all poems published in America, regardless of poetic nationality or location, which seems the best way forward.
Nicholas Liu said…
Todd, you said "an equivalent level of varied names". Clearly you weren't just talking about quality, but also variety--and sorry, but BAP's guest ed list is really not that various:

* 2009: David Wagoner
* 2008: Charles Wright
* 2007: Heather McHugh
* 2006: Billy Collins †
* 2005: Paul Muldoon
* 2004: Lyn Hejinian
* 2003: Yusef Komunyakaa
* 2002: Robert Creeley
* 2001: Robert Hass †
* 2000: Rita Dove
* 1999: Robert Bly
* 1998: John Hollander
* Best of the Best: '88-'97: Harold Bloom
* 1997: James Tate
* 1996: Adrienne Rich
* 1995: Richard Howard
* 1994: A. R. Ammons
* 1993: Louise Glück †
* 1992: Charles Simic †
* 1991: Mark Strand †
* 1990: Jorie Graham
* 1989: Donald Hall †
* 1988: John Ashbery

If the broadness of the church is defined purely by the gulf between its two most dissimilar members, fine, but by any other measure, I don't see how the claim can be made.
Nicholas Liu said…
And by "Roddy can do better", I was referring precisely to his ability to his ability to seek out suitable--and *various*--guest editors.

Spendid series my arse. It's a logistical and administrative marvel, I'll give you that.
I own the entire set of 'Best American Poetry', including a galley proof of the first edition with treasured signatures by Nobelists Heaney and Walcott. Each edition reflects the idiosyncratic taste and preferences of the guest editor, but with much of the journal screening done by Lehman (the poems all come from the previous year's journals).
The choices are hardly the'Best', perhaps excepting for the perennial choices of poems by John Ashbery. Nonetheless, the series are 'must buys' and a commercial success.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".