The situation is lively and in flux, and is likely to continue that way for some time. This is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if, as Page suggests, вЂњthe quality of the best work bears comparisonвЂќ with that of other countries, and if, as Page also suggests, poets who вЂњrepresent, or identify with, minority groupings вЂ¦ are slowly being more widely represented in major anthologiesвЂќ. With anthologists becoming, Page writes, вЂњmore cautious about omission itвЂ™s not so much about exclusion now but branding by short measureвЂќ!ДЄnyhow, the end result is that вЂњthere is no generally agreed canon various traditions contend or, increasingly, coexistвЂќ. However, there can be a darker side to the choice of a, perhaps, вЂњlesserвЂќ poem, or, say, fewer poems for one poet over another. I can understand this desire from both the compilerвЂ™s and readerвЂ™s point of view. The universal anthologistвЂ™s desire to discover what has not been anthologised beforeвЂ“which often, when space for only two or three poems is available, means passing up a classic for something less central. Page recognises the impact (on canon formation) of He also makes the obvious-when-you-think-about-it point that itвЂ™s not just who is included or excluded but what poems are chosen. He also talks about the gaps in representation вЂ“ such as of women, First Nations, and non-English speaking background poets вЂ“ and notes some slow improvements in these areas. He suggests that anthologies compiled by academics have tended to be the вЂњfairestвЂќ. PageвЂ™s survey and analysis of inclusions and exclusions in several anthologies is fascinating. No editor, of course, can really escape his or her own subjectivity but it is remarkable how many ones seem to feel it was not worth the effort anyway. This has been well documented over the years but he simply alludes to it here, making the point that different prejudices have played out in the anthologies produced. Impediments include the times in which they were compiled (such as the nationalistic/imperialistic tenor of one in 1922), and, in AustraliaвЂ™s case, differences of opinions between poets. He discusses Australian anthologising through much of the 20th century, focusing particularly on the impediments to their canon potential.

I had found an excellent article in JSTOR, written by poet Geoff Page in 1994. So, a summary instead, to which you may all say, phew!Д®ssentially, I was writing about the value of anthologies, starting from the point of view that national anthologies can play a role in defining a canon (putting aside whether defining a canon is a good thing or not). I usually copy and paste my content elsewhere when something like this happens, but I didnвЂ™t tonight and lost it all. Bertram Stevens, Golden treasury of Australian verse (1912): my oldest, but most recently acquired, it was given to my grandmother in 1914.ДЄnd here, I lost three hours work, when WordPress suddenly told me I donвЂ™t have the right to save my work, and I hadnвЂ™t noticed that it wasnвЂ™t saving! I feel defeated as I just canвЂ™t sit down now at 8pm and rewrite the whole thing.Jamie Grant, 100 Australian poems you need to know (2008): organised by themes.Susan Hampton and Kate Llewellyn, The Penguin book of Australian women poets (1986): produced partly in reaction to years of male-poet-heavy anthologies organised chronologically.I treasure/d this book (loved the title, of course).

Hansen, The call of the gums: An anthology of Australian verse (1962): my first year of high school poetry text.

Whisperings an anthology of poetry