Sunday, March 01, 2009

The flexibility of reputation ...

... Robert Lowell and the "Great" Debate.

Although one might legitimately argue that final evaluation by David Orr about the relative greatness of the poetry written by Lowell or Bishop, and I could make a case for both poets, Orr’s reference to the changing status in the minds of readers and the writings of critics concerning Robert Lowell and Elizabeth Bishop in recent decades ought to serve as a caution against pronouncements of greatness about anybody, even those we may believe worthy and whom we widely admire among present-day poets, including a designation of John Ashbery as great by David Orr or the Library of America.

Hear, hear.

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:35 PM

    As I suggested, perhaps not clearly enough, in my piece on Orr's essay (at When Falls the Coliseum), the exercise of judgement in the comparison of works of art to each other is essential in attempting to determine "greatness". In many quarters, this attempt appears to be seen as either pointless or arrogant or misguided. The point being that only time will determine greatness. I would argue that only readers and critics exercising judgment over time--about the work and not about the reputation--will arrive at a proper assessment. Why shouldn't we all be a part of this process?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you and I are pretty much on the same page with, Christopher. You are certainly right that time doesn't accomplish anything. People doing something over time do.

    ReplyDelete