Gray, Jeffrey H. "Poets' Puffery." CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION February 27, 2009.

Europeans have often seen Americans as optimists and themselves as "realists." It is true that in the United States, the sense of exceptionalism — a term revived in the recent presidential campaign — seems to have driven hyperbole to new heights. In the academic sphere, grade inflation has been increasing since the late 1960s (at elite institutions more than elsewhere). Student evaluation forms have as many as eight categories, the highest indicating "top 5 percent" and "top 1 percent" (also called "truly exceptional"). Certainly, no one gets into graduate school with "satisfactory," which, by the logic of inflation, has long been understood to mean "poor." (In fact, when the College Board "recentered" SAT scores in 1995, resulting in an average score increase of about 100 points, "poor" became "good," and "good" became "excellent.") And consider the American military, in which virtually every soldier is evaluated as "outstanding." Perhaps, in a culture of hyperbole, a certain value fatigue sets in, and one longs for deflation as a correction. For my part, over the past few years of editing a large reference work on American poetry, I've found an unexpected pleasure in the merely satisfactory. Of the hundreds of entries my associate editors and I received from scholars of American poetry of all periods, some of the most satisfying discussed pre-20th-century poets and included characterizations like the following: Nathaniel Evans (18th century) is "noted by most historians as a 'fledgling versifier' whose occasional verses were wholly 'unremarkable.'" Elizabeth Akers Allen (19th century) "was considered a minor Victorian poet even by her contemporaries." Her sentiments were "expressed competently, but with no attempt at innovation in style or content." William Byrd's (18th-century) "contribution to poetry is not at all significant." Indeed, "he published merely a few short, uninteresting poems." In our present-day culture of inflation, such humble assessments are appealing. Faint praise is sometimes appropriate. Charles Henry Phelps's "Love-Song" (1892), a political overture to Canada, makes a poor bid for immortality: "Why should we longer thus be vexed? Consent, coy one, to be annexed." But even William Cullen Bryant, surely a bright star of 19th-century poetry — the prodigy who, at 17, wrote "Thanatopsis" — is treated with disdain: "By the end of the 20th century, most critics pronounced him 'minor' when they took note of him at all." My own favorite entry, on Gertrude Bloede (19th century), sums up a poet's bad dream of posterity: "Interest in her work, always limited, declined after her death." Curiously, it is almost impossible to find such modest assessments when one turns to contemporary poetry. Indeed, the problem of neglect or insignificance evaporates in a situation in which, in spite of the vast numbers writing (800 to 1,000 books of poetry are published in the United States per year; thousands of other poets publish in journals and quarterlies), we have no minor poets. Everyone today, like those above-average children of Lake Wobegon, is brilliant and sui generis. . . .

Read the rest here: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=lgpr5t1c6f9r0prghwmp5ytxyds9tmnf.

Howard, Jennifer. "The Literary Anthology, Revised and Excised." CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION December 21, 2007.

The first edition of the Norton Anthology of English Literature appeared in 1962. Since then, the mighty tome has gone through eight editions and introduced generations of undergraduates to the joys (or sorrows) of Chaucer, Milton, and Keats. For many, the memory of staples like "Ode on a Grecian Urn" cannot be separated from the physical fact of the Norton, its hundreds of tissue-thin pages adding up to serious canonical heft. Forty-five years later, the Norton remains the 800-pound gorilla in the classroom. But it faces vigorous and growing competition from other anthologies, notably the Longman Anthology of British Literature and the Broadview Anthology of British Literature. And, like its younger rivals, it has to figure out how to stay relevant — and marketable — in what's been called the postcanonical age, when the old literary lions fight for space with hordes of once-neglected writers. Today's anthologies must appeal to instructors faced with increasingly tough decisions — about what students in survey courses should read, how much they're willing or able to read, and what background they need to understand it in the first place. Behind all of that looms a bigger, theoretical concern. The study of world literatures in English is on the rise. How close is the day when anthologies centered on the literary output of the British Isles will have outlived their usefulness? . . .

Read the rest here: http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=fcRjyp3kjvPnpsPNRfSQCMwD8MT3pZxt.