[New-Poetry] Bishop's drafts cause uproar

[Mike Snider]

 Tad and James--

One problem is that the new book is much more attractively packaged and marketed than Bishop's complete, which is rather dowdy (if not downwright ugly), with an informative but certainly not inviting title. For those of us already more or less familiar with her work (whether wee like it ot not) these aren't issues, but think of new readers looking at the two side by side (if the Complete is even in the store)--there's Edgar Allen Poe and the Jukebox in its bright dustjacket, naming the one poet everybody still learns in high school (or do they? I may be out of date). Which is that newbie going to buy? And having read it, if he or she doesn't like it, it won't be because of the qualities manifest in Bishop's previously published work--the work she chose--and that reader may very well miss out on wonderful poetry. On the other hand, if that reader does like the Jukebox, the Complete is likely to be disappointing.


On Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 04:09AM, TheOldMole <tad at opus40.org> wrote:

>Well, not much can do Bishop any good at this point. Dead, and all.
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Michael Snider" <mandolin at mac.com>
>To: "NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News &amp; Views" 
><new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Bishop's drafts cause uproar
>
>
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2006, at 6:21 PM, JforJames at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't seen the whole Vendler argument against...has others
>>> read it?  (There is just about a paragraph or two on the New  Republic's
>>> online site.) Vendler seems to be arguing that the book is engaging
>>> in 'false advertising'...that the pieces published in the _Edgar  Allan 
>>> Poe_
>>> collection were never meant to see the light of day. But it would seem
>>> that the state of the manuscript copies, evidence from letters, the  way
>>> the material was organized, etc., should be able to tell a scholar or
>>> careful editor something about how Bishop felt about an unpublished 
>>> piece.
>>> And certainly there is precedence for books tracing the successive 
>>> drafts
>>> of famous poems...so I don't know what the gripe would be about that.
>>>
>>> A poem, obviously a successive draft, organized with other
>>> poems in similar state in a binder or folder of some kind, poems
>>> sent in a letter to another poet (like M. Moore) for comment, etc.,
>>> may very well be 'finished' (or abandoned per Auden via Valery)
>>> but, for this or that reason remained unsuited for collection.
>>> A few scribble lines from a notebook or on a lipsticked stained
>>> cocktail napkin might be stretch to call 'unpublished'.
>>> Finnegan
>>>
>>
>> The entire review is online here: http://www.powells.com/review/ 
>> 2006_04_06
>>
>> It seems entirely sensible to me; Iv'e looked though the boojk a  number 
>> of times at bookstores and not bought it once--and I love  Bishop's 
>> poetry. Of course particular scholars might need access to  this sort of 
>> material, but I think it does Bishop no good.
>>
>> Mike S
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-Poetry mailing list
>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>New-Poetry mailing list
>New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>
>


-----
Sent from webmail, so I'm not at my computer. 
http://www.mikesnider.org/formalblog for the Sonnetarium