I'm not sure if I should offer a "thank you" for the witty assessment of Palgrave and others... or a "warning"-- do not read North Sea Poets posts if you have a deadline in which you're supposed to be doing something less interesting than going down a poesy rabbit hole!
I’ve long been a fan of The Golden Treasury, but in reading this article I have learnt much about it that I did not know previously. I still admire the Golden Treasury for selecting its poems in accord with a distinctive vision. Selection and arrangement is itself a kind of artistic process, which to me makes the Golden Treasury more than just the sum of its parts. I don’t think that can be said for all anthologies, although that is probably because Palgrave consciously selected in accordance with aesthetic criteria (this is not to say that his are the only defensible aesthetic criteria, of course) rather than trying to be faithful to the actual historical diversity of English poetry period-by-period.
I just opened this in email to skim but ended up reading the whole thing; it was very funny and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Will have to go and look at part one now.
I'm not sure if I should offer a "thank you" for the witty assessment of Palgrave and others... or a "warning"-- do not read North Sea Poets posts if you have a deadline in which you're supposed to be doing something less interesting than going down a poesy rabbit hole!
!
Really interesting and an excellent, informative read. Thank you.
I’ve long been a fan of The Golden Treasury, but in reading this article I have learnt much about it that I did not know previously. I still admire the Golden Treasury for selecting its poems in accord with a distinctive vision. Selection and arrangement is itself a kind of artistic process, which to me makes the Golden Treasury more than just the sum of its parts. I don’t think that can be said for all anthologies, although that is probably because Palgrave consciously selected in accordance with aesthetic criteria (this is not to say that his are the only defensible aesthetic criteria, of course) rather than trying to be faithful to the actual historical diversity of English poetry period-by-period.
I just opened this in email to skim but ended up reading the whole thing; it was very funny and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Will have to go and look at part one now.