[Andrew Frisardi]

Originally Posted by Duncan Gillies MacLaurin

No editor of an anthology that was primarily formal verse would ever dream of calling his/her book "The Best British Poetry 2011".

Why not, if that's what the editor liked most? Like Rory, I'd have thought it's obvious that an editor's choices are that editor's (well informed, cultivated, etc.) choices. No more no less.

Myself, I'm never really interested in the Best of American Poetry anthologies (the only ones I've seen). The selection is really never any better than reading various poems out of some of the good magazines at any given time. I don't honestly see the point of it, other than, as Roddy says, promoting poetry in general--which is definitely a good thing to do. Since I already like poetry, no one needs to promote it to me though.

[Ann Drysdale]

The appointment as Sole Editor gives one a right to choose all the poems, but gives one no say whatsoever in the title. That is all explained in the book - and earlier in this thread.

In the course of a long "career" in provincial journalism, I have occasionally shed tears over a crass or stupid headline, knowing that my readers would attribute it to me rather than to the sub-editor who had spread concentrated journalese on my Melba toast. Poor Roddy.

[Duncan Gillies MacLaurin]

I had no idea, Ann! Apologies to Roddy then!! To whom may Jayne and I send our curses?

Duncan

[Rory Waterman]

It seems to me that there are more good free verse poems being written than formal poems, though I find the splitting into two camps - us and them - depressing and inimical and, as it happens, more reductive than using the word 'Best' in the title of an anthology. I do not know of one biased editor - well, not on that score, not in Britain (excluding places like Shearsman, which makes its preferences clear). Most of my poems would be regarded by many people here as formal, but I don't feel as though in the four years I've been getting published I've ever been overlooked as a result of writing such poems. As for the title - well, the Best American Short Stories series (etc) has been going on for years and nobody has died. The publishers want it to sell, which seems fair enough. Blame the silly titles of such books on our culture, perhaps.

[Rory Waterman]

Oh - I didn't read below Duncan's reply to my post before responding. Sorry.

[Roddy Lumsden]

Duncan - I don't understand why you find the book either arrogant or exclusive. There is no exclusion going on here - I chose the poems I chose and there is quite a breadth there - including much that is formal - have you read it?

Personally, I like the challenge put forward by the 'best' tag. In the US, in recent years, it has been the 'best' as judged by guest eds as disparate as Billy Collins and Lyn Hejinian. It would be a blander concept if guest editors were expected to tick boxes and include a bit of everything, even if they didn't like it.

[Duncan Gillies MacLaurin]

Originally Posted by Roddy Lumsden

Duncan - I don't understand why you find the book either arrogant or exclusive. There is no exclusion going on here - I chose the poems I chose and there is quite a breadth there - including much that is formal - have you read it?

What I wrote, Roddy, was: "If he'd called it 'Some of the Best British Poetry 2011', then it wouldn't come across as being arrogant and exclusive." That is not the same as saying that I find the book either arrogant or exclusive. I was merely saying it comes across that way because of its title. And no, I haven't read it.

Duncan

[R. Nemo Hill]

"It would be a blander concept if guest editors were expected to tick boxes and include a bit of everything, even if they didn't like it."

Amen.

Nemo

[Nicholas F.]

I'm in the middle of reading Best American Poetry 2011, ed. Kevin Young, and I'm finding quite a bit to like. I can't say there's much properly formal poetry, nor would I expect it. This is all tangential to the discussion, I realize, but so long as the selection is transparently subjective (and how could it not be subjective?), then what is the problem, really? You can't edit these anthologies without someone feeling hacked off, can you?

[Rory Waterman]

What Nick said. Which isn't to say I don't see the problem, such as it is, with the use of the word 'Best' in these things (the word immediately denies subjectivity, whilst the book must be a manifestation of it) but I understand it and I don't see how it can matter. This thread is pretty grim, really. There are more important things than counting the number of metrical poems in what is just another anthology, and getting pissed off about what is no more and no less than a harmless measure used to make a book of poems sell widely and to help keep a struggling poetry press afloat. In his introduction, RL says that if the word upsets you, a cup of tea and a nap might help. Amen.