[Clive Watkins]

Dear Eva

While not disputing the general picture indicated by your statistics, I think it might be helpful to include the publication history of the anthologies you refer to. (Perhaps this information appeared in your original essay.)

For example, as far as I can tell from my own shelves and from a little googling, Allott’s Penguin Book of Contemporary Verse was first published in 1950 and reprinted several times; an expanded edition was issued in 1962. Alvarez’s The New Poetry was first published in 1962 and revised in 1966. George Macbeth’s Poetry 1900-1965 came out in 1967. Edward Lucie-Smith’s British Poetry Since 1945 first appeared in 1970; there was a new edition in 1986. Enright’s Oxford Book of Contemporary Verse dates from 1980; it appears to have been re-issued in 1995 with a new title.

Though all of these anthologies have long been out of print, it is interesting to consider whether their very existence serves to “fix” an understanding of the range and nature of poetry. No doubt their selections represent only their editors’ judgement about a particular historical moment, but I wonder how far they continue to insist on a limiting view of the available kinds of poetries, either those written in the past or those now being written. But this raises a question not just about the generation of anthologies, an important subject in its own right, but about the uses to which anthologies are put by readers.

Regards

Clive Watkins

[Stuart Farley]

Eva,

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make a study of the woman poets who didn't make it into those anthologies, even though their poems might have displayed more merit than some of their male counterparts.

For example, in the case of British Poetry Since 1945, you could look at the relevant British women poets writing since 1945, who, in your opinion, really ought to have made it into the anthology, but were ousted by a lesser male poet.

All the best,

Stuart

[Eva Salzman]

The earlier books I cited are, yes, older, but I had included them as new editions, all post-enlightened 1960's.

And what are meant to say about the figures for editors of these books themselves, even worse than the figures of women included, running right up to present day?

I'm uncomfortable about being put in defensive position of having to look at merits of women included or not included, as surely one could do the same with the male poets. I could name one or two, and then we'd end up arguing her merits, as of course we needn't with male poets. Unless of course we're back to the old truism that there are simply far greater numbers of quality male poets, which I don't buy. Indeed, I often find the mediocrities or demerits of said poets are more over overlooked.

If you're familiar with the leading women poets in my anthology and in other women's anthologies which we shouldn't need to represent full breadth of canon, why not say yourselves why these aren't there? Another point I made in Introduction was that it slowly dawned on me that editors and publishers, here especially, were making their decisions about canon without KNOWING truly a lot of these women poets' work, and were instead operating on received ideas: a self-perpetuating closed club. Which is precisely the problem.