Has everyone seen the fine article at
Slate.com about the to-do over publication of Bishop's drafts?

Money quote:

"Vendler argues that the variety of work here will confuse fledgling poets and poetry readers, leading them to confuse mawkish drafts with perfected excellence like that of "Crusoe in England." On the contrary, these false starts warn us that it takes more than a tragic life to make a poem—indeed, that some efforts just don't result in poems. And when they do, a tremendous amount of alchemy is required. Bishop might indeed be mortified by this book (what poet wouldn't be embarrassed by the prospect of their scraps showing up in print), but that doesn't mean it's wrong to publish it. Edgar Allan Poe is an extraordinary reminder that strong feelings and striking perceptions are not art until they have been transformed by our attention to them. Mastery, the work here testifies, is the real mystery."

I thought the debate might stir some interesting discussion here, at any rate.

Sarah

Here's what I wrote in response to a simlar question on one ofthe poetry mailing lists:

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 I may be out of date).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.

------------
I think the Slate article makes good points for readers who happen to be poets and/or critics. But it's clearly marketed for a quite different audience.

Charles Simic reviews the book favorably in a recent New York Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18930