Somebody Asked So I'll Answer

What are my standards for poetry reviewers?

1. He/she has widely and deeply read contemporary poetry, i.e. poetry published since 1980.

2. He/she has read the book under review with an open mind. He/she does not crowbar the book into his/her poetics' box/es until the book's been read, thought about, explored in the process of re-viewing. Credibility doubles.

3. He/she has read other work by the same poet. Credibility doubles again.

4. He/she has read other work by the poet's peers, e.g. if said poet's work appears in Journal A, reviewer has read work by other poets included in Journal A. Context matters. Credibilty doubles yet again.

5. He/she writes a review that is worthy of reading in its own right. Credibility increases exponentially.

Comments

[Lux Tromhorn]

Interesting site you have. I've been getting into poetry blogs and sites online, and have come across a few. I find most of the big name sites like the Academy are out of touch. Two sites worth checking out are http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/ and http://www.cosmoetica.com/ . They really tell it like it is. On Cosmoetica there's also a great anti-war essay. Peace, Lux

[Bob G.]

Dunno about Ron above's comment. To me contemporary poetry would be poetry that's no longer written--no, make that "composed"--in 1950. That is, poetry created by people aware that it is no longer 1950--or earlier. That lets out the majority of so-called contemporary poets. (God, I just realized that some wack is eventually going to start talking about "post-contemporary poetry.") But I didn't open this comment box to say that but to mildly disagree with your thoughts on reviewer credibility, Crag. All that you say does make sense but for me, what the best reviewer does is somehow make you see/feel/understand what some poet you previously were dead to is up to. It doesn't matter whether or not the reviewer's followed your sensible rules of conduct. Let him be ill-read, opinionated, more often wrong than right, and even a clumsy writer (although I like your point five best of your points); if he connects you, that's the mainest thing by far. Even better if he connects you to a new technique or the equivalent you weren't aware of before, and to its uses--top bring not just a poem but a poetry to life. --Bob G.

[Ron]

It's all relative. My definition of contemporary would be poetry since 1950....