Somebody Asked So I'll Answer
What are my standards for poetry reviewers?
1. He/she has widely and deeply read contemporary poetry, i.e. poetry
published since 1980.
2. He/she has read the book under review with an open mind. He/she does not
crowbar the book into his/her poetics' box/es until the book's been read,
thought about, explored in the process of re-viewing. Credibility doubles.
3. He/she has read other work by the same poet. Credibility doubles again.
4. He/she has read other work by the poet's peers, e.g. if said poet's work
appears in Journal A, reviewer has read work by other poets included in
Journal A. Context matters. Credibilty doubles yet again.
5. He/she writes a review that is worthy of reading in its own right.
Credibility increases exponentially.
Comments
It's all relative. My definition of contemporary would be poetry since 1950....
Posted by Ron, 20 March 2005
Dunno about Ron above's comment. To me contemporary poetry would be poetry
that's no longer written--no, make that "composed"--in 1950. That is, poetry
created by people aware that it is no longer 1950--or earlier. That lets out
the majority of so-called contemporary poets. (God, I just realized that some
wack is eventually going to start talking about "post-contemporary poetry.")
But I didn't open this comment box to say that but to mildly disagree with
your thoughts on reviewer credibility, Crag. All that you say does make sense
but for me, what the best reviewer does is somehow make you
see/feel/understand what some poet you previously were dead to is up to. It
doesn't matter whether or not the reviewer's followed your sensible rules of
conduct. Let him be ill-read, opinionated, more often wrong than right, and
even a clumsy writer (although I like your point five best of your points);
if he connects you, that's the mainest thing by far. Even better if he
connects you to a new technique or the equivalent you weren't aware of
before, and to its uses--to bring not just a poem but a poetry to life.
posted by Bob, 27 March 2005
|
