[Julie Steiner]

Sorry, Bill, I was wrong when I said that things are "ramping up". So far as I can tell the Archdiocese has not yet opened an investigation into a Cause for Canonization (although the Mattie J.T. Stepanek Guild is apparently still requesting notarized reflections to assist such a process, should it be formally initiated).

[W.F. Lantry]

One likely candidate: Natasha Trethewey. Others: Mary Szybist, C.D. Wright, Mark Doty, Ai, Juan Felipe Herrera, Kay Ryan, Rita Dove, Carolyn Forché, Mark Jarman.

You could make a whole list, several times as long, especially if you emphasize each as representative of a trend or circle: Catholic poetry, Latino poetry, Poetry of Witness, etc.

Good luck trying to pick two!

Best,

Bill

(just reread the original posts. If I had to pick only two? Carolyn and Juan.)

[Gregory Palmerino]

Originally Posted by Michael Juster

I mean "survive" in the sense that Auden survives but Delmore Schwartz doesn't.

With Michael's definition in mind, I would say any poet who is able to cross into the popular domain the way Auden did and Schwartz didn't (see the Cambridge Companion to W.H. Auden, 2004). Most of the non-reading public these days would know Auden from the movie Four Weddings and a Funeral. I've been teaching college students for twenty years and there would be no difference between Auden and Schwartz if they were writing a research paper on twentieth century poets, which probably says more about my teaching, I'm sorry to say. In any case, I would say someone like a Sherman Alexie who is popular even if you've never read his poetry, which I don't. I often tell my students that A.E. Stallings is my favorite living poet but I don't think her work will "survive" unless it takes off into the public's imagination and not just in the minds and on the bookshelves of lovers of poetry. For the poet to survive, his or her work has to achieve mainstream stature. That doesn't usually happen by the poetry alone. These days anyway.

Best,
Greg

[Kyle Norwood]

My own tastes aside, two poets who have "crossed over into the popular domain" and are likely to still be there in 2045 (if that is really the category you are interested in) are Wendy Cope and Billy Collins.

If the question is "what poets born after 1945 will seem in 2045 to have the stature of someone like Auden," I would say "none." But (my own tastes aside) I imagine that Jorie Graham and Anne Carson will still have devoted readers. My third choice (which I know doesn't count) would be Kay Ryan.

I would guess that in 2045, the generation of 1945-1970 will seem just as hard to define as it does now. Perhaps it will be seen as a period with hundreds of good poets but no great ones.

[John Whitworth]

James Fenton is the best English poet now writing born since 1945. I'm the second best of course though I'm too old for this position. And so is Wendy Cope since she is older than me.

Jorie Graham. Jeeze! Sam's much better than she is. So I nominate Sam for you lot.

[John Whitworth]

Do you have to be a representative of something, Bill? What was Auden a representative of? Gay men who wore bedroom slippers?

[Gregory Dowling]

Originally Posted by Gregory Palmerino

I often tell my students that A.E. Stallings is my favorite living poet but I don't think her work will "survive" unless it takes off into the public's imagination and not just in the minds and on the bookshelves of lovers of poetry. For the poet to survive, his or her work has to achieve mainstream stature. That doesn't usually happen by the poetry alone. These days anyway.

Well, here's another vote for A. E. Stallings. I'm not sure whether what you say is entirely true, Greg. After all, Wallace Stevens has never achieved mainstream stature (unless having a few poems regularly included in anthologies qualifies) but there's no doubt he's a survivor.

[ross hamilton hill]

Pretty crazy to assume anything, one 'great' tra la tra la, poet is probably on death row for a crime he didn't commit, the other is some housewife in Leeds who keeps her poems in a biscuit tin.

[Gregory Palmerino]

Originally Posted by Gregory Dowling

Well, here's another vote for A. E. Stallings. I'm not sure whether what you say is entirely true, Greg. After all, Wallace Stevens has never achieved mainstream stature (unless having a few poems regularly included in anthologies qualifies) but there's no doubt he's a survivor.

Stevens had a couple of heavyweight surrogates on his side, Harold Bloom and Helen Vendler. Who are the literary critics shaping the conversation in this day and age? Are there any heavyweight critics these days? I would argue that it's corporations, not intellectuals. What will "survive" will be driven by market based concerns more than ever before in the coming years. Stevens will die out, but Frost will live because he has market appeal. "Who's woods these are I think I know" is good enough to be on any consumer product (Although the emperor of ice cream is pretty good too). The point is consumer tastes and market needs will drive the decisions of who survives and who doesn't, not the inherent quality of a poet's work. That's why crossover appeal is going to be so very, very important. Do you think Bardolotry would be what it is today without film? Sorry, very cynical this morning.

Greg

[Gregory Dowling]

Originally Posted by Gregory Palmerino

Stevens will die out, but Frost will live because he has market appeal.

Well, as you said earlier, with the Internet everything is going to survive. But more broadly speaking, I think Stevens will continue to have a small but dedicated circle of readers and Frost will continue to have a much broader audience. And why not? Actually, that's how each of them would have liked it. But neither of them is going to die out, unless a capacity for intelligent appreciation of things dies out (which, I guess, might happen in a post-Trump world).