I’ve been pondering a statement made sometime back in a blog post by Bill Knott: “I don’t believe there are any unjustly forgotten 20th Century USAPO—the myth of the unjustly forgotten dead poet.” I love Knott’s contrarianism but wonder about this notion, especially today when I’ve run across a lovely glimpse into one of William Blake’s notebooks, housed at the British Library. The Library’s introduction notes, “William Blake is famous today as an imaginative and original poet, painter, engraver, and mystic. But his work, especially his poetry, was largely ignored during his own lifetime, and took many years to gain widespread appreciation.” If neglect was possible in Blake’s time, why not in ours? Is there a living American poetic genius suffering a similar neglect at this very moment? Or does the ubiquitous access to publishing both in print and online make that kind of neglect impossible?
You're almost certainly right about "too much information." So maybe it's good <a href="http://www.bowker.com/index.php/press-releases/563-bowker-reports-us-book-production-declines-3-in-2008-but-qon-demandq-publishing-more-than-doubles" rel="nofollow">news</a> that in 2008 the number of new books and editions published in the U.S. declined 3%, to a mere 275,232. I imagine
An interesting question.<br /><br />Actually, I think that is is the abundance of publishing opportunities that allows this neglect to be possible. There is just too much information, everywhere, and it's hard to wade through it to find what connects with the individual reader. <br /><br />Of course, I applaud the access that blogs, online journals, and print journals afford readers. <br />