Dear Editor,
While I appreciate the recent editorial regarding Poetry’s policy on selecting books to be reviewed [“Editorial,” September 2005], as well as its rules for book reviewers, Judith Kitchen’s position that recent negative reviews seem to be written “with no other purpose than to prove the cleverness of the writer” [“Letters to the Editor,” September 2005] is not easily dismissed. It seems that the poetry community, in this instance, has traded the sin of reviewers aggrandizing undeserving authors in the spirit of nepotism for the sin of reviewers aggrandizing themselves at the expense of authors. The problem with the current three rules for book reviewers mentioned in the editorial is that they do not seem to contend with Kitchen’s most accurate and necessary statement: “A thoughtful review brings a vision larger than the self to the task of assessment.” Many of these negative reviews seem to be pure self, without this necessary larger vision.
While I appreciate the recent editorial regarding Poetry’s policy on selecting books to be reviewed [“Editorial,” September 2005], as well as its rules for book reviewers, Judith Kitchen’s position that recent negative reviews seem to be written “with no other purpose than to prove the cleverness of the writer” [“Letters to the Editor,” September 2005] is not easily dismissed. It seems that the poetry community, in this instance, has traded the sin of reviewers aggrandizing undeserving authors in the spirit of nepotism for the sin of reviewers aggrandizing themselves at the expense of authors. The problem with the current three rules for book reviewers mentioned in the editorial is that they do not seem to contend with Kitchen’s most accurate and necessary statement: “A thoughtful review brings a vision larger than the self to the task of assessment.” Many of these negative reviews seem to be pure self, without this necessary larger vision.
Baldwinsville, New York
Originally Published: December 31, 2005
Letter to the Editor