I agree with what Rhina says about approaching all poems with suspicion, and I'm sure I do that all the time. But I seem to remember reading an exhortation by Roethke that readers should initially approach all poems with great respect and faith in the poet. (I can't find the exact quote). In other words, one should read all poems as if it were given that they are of the highest quality. If one approaches a poem with skepticism about its quality, it amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy. I try, but generally fail, to maintain this attitude when I read poems posted for critique.
I think, perhaps, that this is one of the biggest problems with poetry submissions to magazines. Magazines receive thousands of poems, 99% of which are simply horrible, so it's only natural that editors will approach each poem with the expectation that it, too, will be horrible. And, I think, this attitude probably leads the editors to overlook some pretty fine poems. That's plainly the advantage a "name" poet has, since the expectation is reversed and the editor begins the poem with the thought that it is probably pretty good, since Richard Wilbur and Rhina Espaillat and Billy Collins and Louise Gluck, etc., don't generally send out substandard work, and the editor will approach their work with the attention and high hopes that Roethke felt all poems deserve. (I'm not saying that their poems don't deserve to be published in the best places, or that they never receive rejections --hmm, maybe Wilbur never receives rejections?-- only that their best work is less likely to be overlooked than similar work from someone without the same track record).
|