David Lehman Books

I will say once again,

David Lehman is one of the most facinating writers, poets, and editors that I have ever read. He is the author of The Daily Mirror, a wonderful and well penned selection of poems.
I believe his perspective and talent for finding the best poets lies in his experience. Mr.Lehman is a great editor and any reader who chooses to pick up and read this book will be thankful.

One can learn so much from the writers and makers of The Best American Poetry books. I also recommend, his most recent book, The Last Avant-Garde: The Making of the New York School of Poets. I give all these books 5 stars!

It seems a general rule of thumb that if you enjoy the guest editor's work, you will enjoy most of their selections. I enjoy Koumunyakaa and his choices for this years best poetry. I especially enjoyed his introduction talking about the lack of content in many poems today. As with most books in this series, there are many familiar names such as Merwin, Williams, Kizer, Levine, Philips, but also some new and hopefully upcoming poets, such as Joy Katz. There are a few September 11th poems, but most of them are readable. This is one of the best in the series that I have read.

What we have here is another mediocre volume in what should be a great series. And this year's looked promising, but you'll find very few poems worth noting inside.

Thank you, David Lehman, for having chosen Yusef Komunyakaa to edit THE BEST AMERICAN POETRY 2003, the most interesting since Adrienne Rich edited THE BEST AMERICAN POETRY 1996. And thank you, Yusef Komunyakaa, for not shuffling the same old, worn cards again! Congratulations to all!

it is hard to imagine a poet wordier than muldoon, "guest editor," but evidently there are, alphabetically ordered, a platoon of them. importantly though, paul muldoon is surely gifted, or has been in some previous life, some life here shed in evident order to stand naked and distressingly unashamed in the heated gaze of the passle of muldoon-ettes that he ostensibly (it is hard to imagine but is evidently so) has selected as representatives of a year's worth of american poetic effort. Surprise: most of them sound rather like Muldoon. Though it is a Muldoon non compos mentis and otherwise compromised by the blind staggers. Perhaps he was sidelined in recovery somewhere and assigned the rounding up of poets to a sightless underling. With few exceptions the poems aboard this sinking ship specialize in congealed imagery; that is, great slovenly gobbets of verbiage fast frozen at sea in the hope they would "pass." Poems impossible to decipher (by dint of having been composed with clarity farthest from anyone's mind), and unlikely to inspire a reader to try. although i am uncomfortable being so sweepingly condemnatory, i would despise myself the more deeply for scrounging after worth in bedlam...that is, in an atmosphere evidently intolerant of pride while unshrinkingly supportive of an over-riding disdain for communication. My apologies to Mr. Muldoon if it is a case of his name being used without permission.

"Your burglaries leave no thumbprint
Mine, too, are silent
I do my best imagining at night,
And you do yours with the help of shadows.

Like actors rehearsing a play,
The dark ones withdrew
Into remote corners of the room
The rest of us sat in expectation
Of your burning oratory."

~ from Sunlight by Charles Simic

The maturity of the poems in The Best American Poetry 2005 is instantly apparent the moment you read "In View of the Fact" by A.R. Ammons. This is a deeply thoughtful collection of poems best addressed when you are in a contemplative mood. Within the pages there are many surprises, lovely conclusions and especially creative thought patterns. Sexuality and death seem to be themes throughout, but there is also humor and cleverly designed rhymes the wittiest poets must long to master.

"Ants" by Vicki Hudspith is especially comical while Mary Karr's poem about her son is especially heart-warming and leans more towards a serious realization of life's complexity within expectation. Richard Garcia's "Adam and Eve's Dog" lightens a topic most would find quite serious and Edward Field's poem of praise has a beautiful freeing conclusion with metaphorical appeal.

"If I were Japanese I'd write about magnolias
in March, how tonal, each bud long as a pencil,
sheathed in celadon suede, jutting from a cluster
of glossy leaves. I'd end the poem before anything
bloomed, end with rain swelling the buds
and the sheaths bursting, then falling to the grass
like a fairy's castoff slippers, like candy wrappers,
like spent firecrackers."
~ Beth Ann Fennelly, pg. 46

What I am most impressed by in this collection of poems, is the truthfulness and the straightforward invitation into this sincerity. There is a cleverness in the crafting of each idea (I Want to be Your Shoebox) and at times profound lessons can appear through the viewpoint of a poet who sees the world a little more intensely (The Poets March on Washington). Jane Hirshfield's "Burlap Sack" paints an image of bondage and freedom, while Linda Pastan reveals a different type of cultural freedom.

Paul Muldoon's selections also provide a consistent mood and his love for rhyme and complex sentence structures invites you into a world of poems that reveal intricate details of your own life. At times his selections are realistic and edgy with mature considerations and at other times he has selected profound moments to inspire a more heartfelt appreciation for beauty. Both ideas seem to weave together to form a painting of how life is really lived in a realistic setting, as opposed to a more romantic rendering of ideas within a dreamscape of fantasy poems. Now and then, a line in a poem is so highly significant you can read the entire poem and then suddenly awaken upon a stunning moment.

"Wanting the tight buds of my loneliness
to swell and split, not die in wanting.
It was why I rushed through everything,
why I tore away at the perpetual gauze
between me and the stinging world"
~ pg. 133, Chase Twichell

I can also highly recommend the 2006 edition of The Best American Poetry, which is enhanced with pop culture references and a distinctly contemporary mood. As with all the books edited by David Lehman, the "Foreword" is well worth reading. David Lehman's experience in the world of poetry reveals ideas that will be of great interest to anyone interested in poetry culture.

~The Rebecca Review

BAP2005 surely is a high point for the quality of the volume's poetry and the number of internet offerings included.

first class condition and prompt delivery Thank you

The poems collected here are fine enough for the most part, but there's something jarring about the overall package that contains them. The book is filled with selfcongratulatory preambles and introductions, photographs and observations that are meant to represent the feel of being at a reading at the KGB Bar, but instead it feels as if you are rifling though someone's old yearbook. You know it matters a lot to the people inside, but there isn't enough there to hold your interest. I prefer the way in which the original KGB Bar Reader was put together, offering interesting prose with out all the fancy wrappings. And has anyone noticed that the essay included here by the bar's owner seems to [resemble] the introduction from the original book?

Reading "The KGB Bar Book of Poems" was awesome -- it captured the experience of being there. The poems are varied, but always interesting and sometimes spectacularly good; the anecdotes are fun, the photographs charming. A great package. Hey, Dave and Star, if you have an open date, how about a reading? My first book is about to come out.

A great intro to contemporary poetry. I say this because the KGB Bar Book of Poems is more than just a collection of poems, its a collection of photographs, and a collection of anecdotes. In some cases, the anecdotes outshine the poetry. Roberty Bly's account of taking a really small audience to a local apartment is charming, and Susan Wheeler's experience with a group of convicted criminals is melancholy and thoughtful. Additionally, the photograhs lend a great deal to the atmosphere in the book. The dark smokey inebriated interior of the bar shines through Star Black's trained lense. The poets and friends are always jubilant and inviting. While reading, you really feel privy to some special knowledge.

The poetry itself can be a mixed bag. It brings to mind the maxim, "you can't please all of the people all of the time." Personal favorites for me are "Santa Monica" by Charlie Smith, and David Trinidad's "Of Mere Plastic", a funny but insightful take-off of "Of Mere Being" by Wallace Stevens. I suggest you by the book and read these two last. Each poet has a short bio before their poem, listing their publications and history, so its a great lead of to some terrific books. Find a poet you like, and dig into their back-prints. Indeed, people don't read enough poetry these days. And what's a better way to start than with this seemingly "underground" compilation?

This is an exciting book. It is a sort of chronicle of the celebrated poetry reading series at the KGB Bar in the East Village of New York City. The place is like a latter-day equivalent of famous 1950s bars like the Cedar Tavern. The book includes poems, photographs, and one of the things I liked the most, anecdotes from the poets. The book has charm. It has life. And oh yes it has poetry.

This is really a fun book. The structure of it is original and ingenious; 85 poets print one of their poems, and then write a short essay about the process of writing the poem. More than any book I've ever read about "the poet's journey" or "the process of writing poetry" or anything else, this offers insight into the process of writing and the evolution of a work. And it offers 85 different perspectives. I love this book.

I look forward to each new installment of the BAP series, and I appreciate the unique gloss that each guest editor puts on "their" edition. I enjoy some volumes more than others, and Bly's is one of my favorites. I wearied of the political stridency in Adrienne Rich's 1996 volume, and John Hollander's 1998 volume was a bit too formalistic. Bly's volume, though, contains a nice selection of accessible, incisive and sparkling poems--crisp, pungent and immediate.

I was excited by the first few poems in this collection because I admire formalism and precision in poetry. But I also admire life, surprise, human voices, and raw power in poetry, and the more I read of this collection, the more I felt the need to open a window for some air. Too many of these poems were left-brain exercises in language, but language as divorced from life. And the lengths! There wasn't a single long poem in this collection that I had any interest in continuing with after the first three pages, and to my dismay, many of these went on considerably beyond three pages. (One was at least 30 pages, or was I hallucinating?)

Anthologies are always hard to review because they contain such varied works from such varied writers. The 1999 version of this book is very good indeed, with lots of easy-to-read works. Most of the poems inside are simple and to the point, with nothing too abstract or creative. I must admit I didn't enjoy reading this book as much as I do anthologies with more varied styles, but if you're looking for a good book to curl up with over a cup of tea then this book will be a real treat.

David Lehman's Forewords in The Best American Poetry books are especially fun to read if you have any interest in how poetry infuses our culture with creativity. The foreword in the 1999 anthology is no exception and is a rather scintillating read with numerous pop culture references and examples of how poetry appears in movies, TV shows and magazines.

Robert Bly's introduction is stunning and his poetry selections have a vibrancy, humor and depth that is rare in many poetry collections. His discussion about how we analyze poetry or meet the words soul to soul continues with stunning wisdom:

"So he or she who loves art and culture will honor all these Chambers of the Mind. But at the moment an artist is about to set down his or her poem, the wise artist will let them all go, bless them with gratitude and rejection, until nothing is left but the snowfall touching the soul."

Dick Allen's "The Selfishness of the Poetry Reader" is humorous although it seems to speak of a frustration or a loneliness at being so interested in poetry that he quotes lines at breakfast and keeps books by his bed. No one else seems to understand...

"And I'm certain I'm the single man who owns
a house with bookshelves,
who drives to work without a CD player,
taking the long way, by the ocean breakers."

"Sea of Faith" by John Brehm has a comforting conclusion with images of magical blue waters and a life that is easier to live when all your questions have been answered. Billy Collins' poem "Dharma," about his dog, is one of my favorite poems and I felt compelled to read it to my husband, who thought at first I was referring to a TV show.

John Haines' "The Last Election" paints an image of a world at peace, it is an interesting idea, but seems to speak of a world where everyone becomes much more intimate with their own worlds, turning off the TV. Interesting thoughts and not watching the news as often does make one less stressed.

Tony Hoagland's somewhat sardonic poem "Lawrence" will amuse anyone familiar with the writings of D.H. Lawrence. At times while reading this book I had the feeling of how disappointing it must be to know so much about an author and to walk in a world that runs hurriedly by with callous disregard. Some of the poets even feel lonely walking amongst their peers, as they are so deep in thought about the world and have so many literary references to draw from. David Ray seems to make a study of Hemingway's Garden and William Kulik takes us into a comedy with "The Triumph of Narcissus and Aphrodite."

Jennifer Michael Hecht's "September" is startling in beauty with casual ideas flowing from the page, winding their way right around your heart. One line struck me as especially poignant:

"Tonight, there are people who are so happy,
that they have forgotten to worry about tomorrow."

The beauty of The Best American Poetry series is that each year a different guest editor helps to select the poems and now and then you will fall in love with the same poems. This book was especially fun to read and is one of my favorites from the 90s.

If you enjoy poems by Billy Collins, I can also highly recommend "Picnic, Lightning, look for the poem "I Go Back to the House for a Book" and "Questions About Angels," which has the most brilliant of lines in a poem: "I would feel the pages of books turning inside me like butterflies." I also loved "The Art of Drowning." OK, I admit, I love all his books.

~The Rebecca Review

I always enjoy reading volumes in this series. I even enjoyed reading Bloom's anthology, though I am fiery trajectory away from his strange reactionary stancecademic approach...

THIS volume, is subtle, a pleasant read...but alas, "safe." With some notable exceptions which I will not explicitly note here...the poems are warm milk before bed time, with a slightly pleasing taste of the fragrance of grass of this particular field, that particular pasture.

Safe is nice...and of course has a certain beauty.... With an anthology like those in this series however, I'd like a few showers of fish and frogs on my Spring morning walk...a few beautifully sharp briars scratching my shins...

This book is fine, it's OK, it's not bad. But there's nothing new here. It's not satisfying as biography -- what we gets feels like tiny fragments -- and the critical argument of the book isn't of much interest. The fact that the author essentially disregards the worth of almost all great 20th century poetry not written by the four men that he chooses to focus on is a huge misstep; he could have easily acknowledged the worth of Barbara Guest, the Language poets, Black Mountain, the Beats, etc. but instead either damns them with faint praise or simply damns them, apparently to make his case for the four New York Schoolers stronger. These are four very important poets, yes, but the author seems to be unable to view them in the greater poetic context of the last 100 years, and this puts the book at a serious disadvantage; it may undermine the reader's belief in him as a critic, and it made me, for one, unwilling to follow him down the rather uninteresting critical paths he was mapping out. The quest to determine what is and is not "avant garde" feels misguided and beside the point; how about actually reading the work in a new or compelling way?

Despite the provocative title, there's nothing especially revealing in this workmanlike overview of the New York School. If you know even a little already about Ashbery, O'Hara & Co.--great poets, all--you'll find Lehman has little new to say. If you don't, his assortment of anecdotes and biographical nuggets isn't much help in capturing the New York that electrified so many major artists in the '50s and '60s. You have to sit still for Lehman's cursory reading of the poems (a whole chapter to tell us Kenneth Koch is funny?) to get to the stories and provocative quotes that justify a book like this, more an appreciation than a study. Lehman's under the impression that the New York School poets haven't gotten their due, and he works hard to make them safe and simple for everyday readers like you and me. But his book reminded me how personal a connection each one makes in their poems, so that Lehman comes off as a genial host interrupting your private conversation with the poet to make sure you're enjoying the party. Do four friends make an avant garde? That Lehman thinks so testifies to how rare a thing literary friendships are, and how widely the circles can ripple when talent gets together, in New York or anywhere else.

This book is fine, it's OK, it's not bad. But there's nothing new here. It's not satisfying as biography -- what we gets feels like tiny fragments -- and the critical argument of the book isn't of much interest. The fact that the author essentially disregards the worth of almost all great 20th century poetry not written by the four men that he chooses to focus on is a huge misstep; he could have easily acknowledged the worth of Barbara Guest, the Language poets, Black Mountain, the Beats, etc. but instead either damns them with faint praise or simply damns them, apparently to make his case for the four New York Schoolers stronger. These are four very important poets, yes, but the author seems to be unable to view them in the greater poetic context of the last 100 years, and this puts the book at a serious disadvantage; it may undermine the reader's belief in him as a critic, and it made me, for one, unwilling to follow him down the rather uninteresting critical paths he was mapping out. The quest to determine what is and is not "avant garde" feels misguided and beside the point; how about actually reading the work in a new or compelling way?

providin a broad cultural context fa da poets he emphasizes (ashbery, o'hara, koch, and schuyla), lehman's ang weaves togetha social istory, personal biography, literary criticism, and aesthetic appreciation in a wurk dat offers some insightful readings of specific poems, but da lastin contritubion of which is more likely to be fa da social connections lehman's erbal remedys betweun dis tight-knit group of "playfully serious aesthetes" than fa any specific ruk da book advances. he describes ashbery as a poet of obliquity, fa whom "the subject of ... poetry is consciousness," and fa whom "consciousness is is self, but a self dat is inseparable from da rush of phenomenon dat bombards it on all sides." o'hara is described as da social catalyst of da group and quintessential poet of da everyday, whose wurk, by reorientin criteria fa poetic success away from sincerity, profundity, and depf and toward uma, play, and respect fa da quotidian, established an influential new poetic paradigm. in is least insightful chapta, lehman defends da "critically undervalued" koch as a "serious comic poet," influenced by drama and writin in da tradition of rabelais, byron, lewis carroll, and oscar wilde; and schuyla lehman emphasizes as a more austere and minimal poet of "life outside is window," who "revised da lyric model of da poem as found in whitman, art crane, and william carlos williams." none of dis is particularly startlin to readers at all familiar wiv their wurk, but as a main man and co-conspirata of mostest of da poets he discusses, lehman capitaziles well on is massiv store of anecdotes and offers itherto unrecorded biographical details dat will likely fuel biographical debates fa many years. unfortutanely, is overall thesis-that da new york scool of poets constitutes "the avant-garde-the last avant-garde in american poetry" is supported mostly by impressionistic commentary and mere lists of more recent poets influenced by new york scool aesthetics.

This bio-philisophical account is a compendium of half the origin of post-modern philosophy and procedure in art. It is admittedly vague when it comes to the Beats, the second half, but the Academics are well introduced and begin to be explained. It is better read as an introduction to post-modern alacrity than a biography. This book should be the post-modern art-history text of highschool and university classrooms. And why? What is more galvanizing than a story of four young poets who fought in a war, attended ivy league schools, lived la vie boheme, and made a literary contribution to the world? We have lost these role models today. We have celebrities that live recklessly and leave feckless leagacys behind them. We also have stiff academics who have forgotten the pleasures of life some where between Dante and Wilbur. The Last Avant-Garde is a perfect demonstration of how our "season on earth" can be both meaningful and well-lived.

Collins' poetry is one of "accessibility"--a term he expands upon greatly in his introductory remarks, and there, his voice is firm and assured about the kind of poetry he favors versus drivel passing for verse in contemporary American poetry. Sure, Collins' poetics might not gel very well with the crap being published today, but that is his singular stance and vision of what American poetry is like in 2006, one filled with "Laughter in the Dark" (to borrow a scintillating title by Nabokov).

Since a great many contemporary poems leave me confused or disappointed, I was delighted to connect positively with so many of the seventy-five poems selected by guest editor, Billy Collins. The editor's Introduction brought insights that contributed to my enjoyment, as well as providing guidance to would-be poets. Of course, the guest editor makes a huge contribution to the success of this annual series, and Billy Collins has ferreted out some treasures for 2006.

There is no doubt in my mind that 06's collection is the best I've read (and I've been reading them for some time now), though to be fair, somehow I missed 2005--though I'm not much for Hejimen's taste. I'm not surprised how good this one is though, after all, Billy Collins selected them, and he is a phenomenal poet with great taste. He picked poems that covered all schools but were told in language and images that we can all appreciate and understand. Keep picking poets like this (hey, consider Gioia, Dave Mason and R.S. Gwynn--they'll give you collections as good or better than even this one.).

The only favorite poem of mine is by Kay Ryan. The rest of the stuff is mediocre..

It is good for those who are not inclined to keep up with currently published poets to see the choices of a poet laureate.

David Lehman is one of the most facinating writers, poets, and editors that I have ever read. He is the author of The Daily Mirror, a wonderful and well penned selection of poems.

I believe his perspective and talent for finding the best poets lies in his experience. Mr.Lehman is a great editor and any reader who chooses to pick up and read this book will be thankful.

One can learn so much from the writers and makers of The Best American Poetry books. I also recommend, his most recent book, The Last Avant-Garde: The Making of the New York School of Poets. I give all these books 5 stars!

Above is my proposed title for this series; as you can see, I am not a marketing genius. The series is called "Best of" because it needs to sell, and I am all for that if it gets a few more copies off the shelves. I would propose one more change other than the title, although related: replace the Contributors' Comments (though not the Notes) with comments by the editor. The "Best" anthologies are fun not just for the poems included, but also as a reflection the editors' taste. A paragraph or two explaining the merits of each poem and the reason for inclusion would not only create a small portrait of the editor, but would provide another way to consider the anthology as a whole. The Introduction is too short, and the poets' often banal comments about their own work add nothing to a form that should stand self-contained and alone.

This was suppose to be a collection of the best poetry in 2000, but i don't feel the same way, I couldn't get into the poetry that was picked for this collection of poetry. I give it two stars because of the poems by Frank X. Gaspar, Forrest Hamer, and Cathy Song.

As the author of Blue Street, a new book of romantic poetry, I know how important it is to read other writers' work and absorb other styles. The Best American Poetry is a great collection of works and reading it helped define my style. I recommend it to anyone.

Picking the best involves making bets, and one reason I like this series is the willingness of the editors to make big wagers. This year's volume gives me plenty to like -- including poets I'd not previously encountered (like Linh Dinh, Christopher Edgar, Olena Kalytiak Davis) as well as familiar names (Ammons, Merwin, Wilbur). Any book that can span the gamut from radically chic Michael Palmer on one end to prim Mary Jo Salter on the other is a perfect paradigm of psotmodern values. (Did I really write that?)The concluding section in the book, where the editors of the series going back to John Ashbery pick their favorite poems of the 20th century, is not only fun, it performs an important service in directing attention to great poems easily overlooked. As always I look forward with huge interest to next year's volume. This anthology quickens the appetite for more, always more.

"Signs of the Times" is one of those very rare books that can actually change your life by altering your consciousness about perception and reality. It's a fascinating, riveting and funny account of how Yale University deconstruction guru Paul De Man was exposed after his death as an anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator in Belgium during World War II. It does something unusual and extremely valuable: it turns the tables on the professional cynics of academic theory, by subjecting them to the same rigorous skepticism that they assume they alone are worthy to wield. Lehman's wonderful defense of objectivity, historical truth, and ideological non-dogmatism is one of the most entertaining, exhilarating books I've ever read. After reading it I would never again take at face value the relativistic blitherings of university "experts." Lehman's book does something wonderful: it assumes that a common, decently educated reader and citizen can come to know truths about life. What a fabulous, unique concept for contemporary intellectual life!

Why is this book out of print? It should be taught in universities as a classic work on 20th century literary criticism and "theory". Its take on the posthumous Paul De Man scandal is clear, comprehensive, and mostly convincing. De Man, a dead deconstrutionist, was revealed to have been a cad in his public and private lives. Lehman demonstrates how the equivoque and equivoation that are central to deconstrutionism allowed De Man to rationalize his past as a Nazi collaborator, as a liar to USA immigration and to influential American intellectuals in the 1950s, and as a shuffler off of responsibilities to his first wife and family, all as mere textual details that didn't need addressing in his later career as a very respected American literary critic and academic. I disliked De Man's mandarin literary criticism even before I knew he was involved in deconstructionism--I thought his insistence on universal textual equivocation, universal lack of definitive textual commitment, and universal textual self-referentiality was part of the conservative, literature-has-no-social-bearing school of literary criticism which dominated the academy in the 1950s, and remained vital though not unchallenged there in the 1960s and early 70s. I dock Lehman's book one star for his too indiscriminately lumping De Man and deconstrutionism with other, more socially involved movements in academic thought that Lehmann also happens to dislike.

Lehman is a decent historian of modern poetry, but he is completely out of his depth with the philosophical and theoretical questions raised by deconstruction and other forms of post-structuralism. Far from, as other reviewers imply, offering an impressive defence of objectivity, he actually fails to grasp what the issues are. Robust common sense has its place in everyday life, but is a crude tool with which to tackle technical philosophical problems with which subtle - and qualified - thinkers have been wrestling for centuries.

The supposed scandal about Paul de Man is merely seasoning. Before getting excited about connections between his youthful political errors and his mature theoretical work, it's worth remembering that scientists, logicians, analytical philosophers, professors of law, theologians - and indeed butchers and bakers - have been bedfellows of anti-semitism and fascism. It takes a special kind of ignorance, or prejudice, to suppose that it is a specialty of deconstructionists.

This is the story of an intellectual movement built on a foundation of sand. Deconstructionism is yet another literary movement that accompanied the rise of feminist, ethnic, Marxist and liberation literature, movements that swept the academic world. It is dangerous in its implications and startling in its conclusions. Its founder, Paul de Man, taught literature at Yale.

He hid a dirty secret for forty years: He assisted the Nazis in their occupation of France. In deconstructionist fashion, the response to this news was that the Jews themselves were to blame and he was the victim. Deconstructionists claim that the subject cannot be defined - it is a theory or method or even structure. But among gthe disturbing elements are: History is bunk (so we can't believe or learn anything), words control us (not the other way around), the critic is of more importance than the subject, absence is presence and most importantly, language, not knowledge, is true power.

The term itself derives from a call for the destruction of ontolgy, the study of the nature of being. A close look at the advocates of deconstructionism reveals a fascist undertone throughout. Not only was de Man a one-time supporter but so was Vladimir Sokolov (Yale), Heidegger (Germany), Blanchot (France) and Man's number one disciple, Jacque Derrida, the Algerian Frenchman. Derrida has defended de Man (as well as the others) arguing, in deconstructionist terms, that everything is theory yet nothing can be defined - even terms like good and bad. The fact that this group identified with the far Left is indicative of the totalitarian nature of both movements.

The description of the politicalization of academia should be required reading for every tax payer or parent of a prospective college student. This is an important, well-written brilliant study of a tragic event in our nation's history. It should serve as a warning.

The most fascinating part of the De Man saga is the fact that he lived a lie for roughly forty years, like some sort of film noir of a lie lived in plain sight. Everything he wrote after the war can only be seen in the light of the fact, not only that he was a collaborator, but that he must have known that his past would eventually turn up, and that everything he wrote about guilt and truth and language would eventually be read in that light. His nihilism was in a sense one long exculpation. And why was he never fingered during his life? Was there no other Belgian refugee who said, "Wait a minute, I remember this guy from Le soir vole!" How could a highly visible collaborator survive a very public career in the US without even changing his name? The only way to explain it is by saying that he was Belgian and wrote in Flemish, but even that doesn't explain it. And if he was such a cad, how come none of his Belgian friends--or even his wife, who he deserted--ratted him out? Strangely, Lehman never even mentions that, as if the question never occurs to him. De Man's writing is magisterial and affectless, and it is not hard to understand why his students admired him so greatly. His story reminds me a great deal of that of Leo Strauss, another refugee who came to the US (under very different circumstances) and also founded a sect on the basis of a method of reading, deconstruction in the one case and esotericism in the other.

some of the peotry is ok in this volume but for this most part they are most too conservative and dry. it is the editing here that reflects the personalities it seems of the two editors and simply did not keep my interest.

In each volume of The Best American Poetry, there are usually a handful of really good or great poems, but on a whole, I find them to disappointing. It's generally not the best American poetry in any given year. Nor is 1995's volume the 'best' but it does have a higher number of good or great poems in it. Richard Howard (1995's guest editor) does a better job than most of the other guest editors I've read. You find poems by Margaret Atwood, Rafael Campo, Ginsberg, Marilyn Hacker, Anthony Hecht, Andrw Hudgins, Kizer, Kumin, Mary Jo Salter, and a great series of poems by Molly Peacock. There is also a wonderful poem by Sally Ball. I wish the series would get back up to this level of quality.