Donald Hall--Interview by David McDonald

American Poetry Review, The, Jan/Feb 2002 by McDonald, David

DM: You used-to be a sort of a literary correspondent between England and America. No one seems to be filling that role anymore. Should someone? Are we missing out on something by not having more commerce in poetry between English-speaking countries?

DH: I don't think anyone is acting as a link between England and the United States. The poetries have grown apart. I went to Oxford, then went back to England for a couple of years, and stayed in touch. I still read some of the books, some of the magazines . . . but I do not feel close to new English poetry.

For twenty years or so I broadcast an annual onehour program on the BBC about new books by American poets. I picked six books, talked about them, read some of the poems. Often I picked poets who were not well known. I remember doing Ammons's second book, when almost nobody knew him. I worked with a producer who had been my friend at Oxford, the poet George MacBeth, dead now. When he left the BBC his successor had me do it one more year and then terminated it. Maybe I was one half of a bridge, though when I was in England I tried to raise interest in certain American poets. While I was at Oxford I wrote a two-part piece for a London monthly: "American Poets Since the War." It advocated Wilbur, Lowell, and Roethke. Yes, I wish someone else would try to show me the best of what is happening in England. Maybe somebody is, and I don't know it.

DM: You have said that the poet you admire most in your generation is Robert Creeley. What do you admire about his work?

DH: I'm not really sure that I admire him the most of any poet in my generation. But why not? I admire many. I choose to admire him publicly because I do not think he is getting enough attention now, and because he is not like me. I love his marching ear, and the delicacy of his nuances. He has published too many poems, but what the hell. DM: Louis Simpson has said about you that he doesn't know any other person who has done so much to bring the best contemporary writing to the attention of the public. You do seem to have been your generation's most prolific chronicler; as an editor, anthologist, essayist, promoter and provocateur. And you have described yourself as being passionate about your generation. Do you still feel that passion?

DH: Probably I feel less passion about my generation now, but more passionate about it than about any other generation. One is of one's own time. When I made those early anthologies, like Contemporary American Poetry, I was excited about the poets I was presenting, and wanted to be their advocate. I wanted to impose my taste upon the world.

I feel more connection to the poets of my generation, and maybe the generation following-Simic, Strand, Jane, and several women-than I do about people under fifty. I feel that I have less judgment about them. I feel disconnected. I will no longer judge prizes.

DM: You've said that one of the most extraordinary things you've seen is the increased numbers of poets, people with at least some ability. What does this mean for the writing and the reading of poetry?