[New-Poetry] 100 Poets You Should Know

[Bob Grumman]

jforjames at aol.com wrote:
> Bob, the International list I suggested should try to avoid personal 
> taste and sensibility, and try, as much as possible, to step back
> and to survey what poets, for whatever reason, seem to be gathering 
> the most attention in our times.  
> That being said, I don't think this 'visible set' is always mutually 
> exclusive form the set of poets that really will
> stand up over time. A net of hundred or so will surely have in it a 
> few keepers.

Agreed.  But why this "you should know?"  Why not just, "The 100 Most 
Recognized Names in American Poetry," and "The 100 Most Recognized Names 
in International Poetry?"  Although you'd have to add, "By NY Times 
standards" or something, to keep out pop song lyricists, rappers, and 
maybe some of the very well-known contra-genteel poets, cowboy poets, 
slam poets, etc.
>
> For example, UK-centric, I'd put J.H.Prynne and Geoffrey Hill on my 
> list of the International 100.
> Finnegan
What would really be great would be a list of poets a full-range critic 
should be familiar with, with the reason each should be familiar to the 
critic.  Why, for instance, is Ashbery "an essential poet?"  He sure 
isn't to me, though I know I've read some poems of his with enjoyment.  
I tend to think any critic or poet serious about poetry should have 
twenty or thirty good poets he reads because he enjoys them, and thirty 
or forty he goes to in order to further his knowledge of the craft.  I 
would hope there is overlap between the two groups.  I'm not too clear 
on all this.  I do know that  I have the collected poems of Wilbur and 
Larkin and read from them on occasion with enjoyment.  But I don't feel 
I ever learn anything, and would like to know what they do I wouldn't 
have learned from my extensive reading of Frost, or Hardy. 

To repeat myself yet again.

--Bob