Poetry vs. Atlanta Review is an interesting comparison. Reading Parisi's Poetry always seemed (to me) a very 'safe' affair -- the poetry was very polished, and I couldn't find much to complain about, but sometimes I wished for poems that were more risky, and maybe less stately (or sedated). The quality was there, but there were few surprises, and I would end up sort of flatlining.
Wiman's version seems (again, to me) to be more of a mixed bag, with some fresh names now and then, and a greater range not merely of styles, per se, but of depths, or scopes. He seems more of an aesthete to me, probably because of the number of formally accomplished but depth-challenged pieces I've found in there. Yet still, it's nice to be surprised now and again. And yes, I subscribe.
I thought at least Goldbarth's PEOTRY offering was a hoot.
Atlanta Review, on the other hand, has always seemed a mixed bag -- international issues, theme issues, contest winners, and lots of new/newer names. I subscribed for a couple of years, and could always find at least a few poems I truly admired. I could also find, always, one or two very coarse, unsubtle poems wherein the sound devices were employed like jackhammers, with alliteration, internal rhyme and consonance so overbearing that I wondered if the words were the "best words" after all. Seems Veach sometimes has an odd sweettooth for super-conspicuous device that I do not share.
But the upshot is probably that I'm picky, or just nuts, and somebody (probably lots of somebodies) out there can appreciate any given poem appearing in either journal. History and reputations aside, if I could only toss one journal into the time capsule, it'd be Poetry. Not nearly as oddly homogenous as it used to be, but it's still pretty solid, and like Landrum suggested, it can be useful for calibrating your instruments.
|
Threaded Mode
