Talk:Jack Gilbert

Undo of last known revision
Although the content of the previously removed section seems biased, it gives two differing perceptions concurrently, not favoring one over another. Either aspect of Gilbert's post-first book career is plausible as seen by critics and biographers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus of old (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are referring to here? What is this content specifically? Could you point out the passage?  Thanks. 66.150.206.1 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to the edit made closest to the time of my original comment; now it doesn't matter, I guess. Icarus of old 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Perception of Gilbert
Davidrr1 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Jack Gilbert certainly was not and is not an alcoholic. He was and is a teetotaler. I have known him since he taught at San Francisco State in the 60s and from the time he met Linda Gregg (a classmate of mine). I have never known him to touch a drink.


 * Yes, but this is not even mentioned in the article. (Icarus of old 04:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC))


 * I agree. One must not confuse comments made in discussion with the article itself. I have never heard anything on record about Gilbert's habits one way or another-- it could be relevant though if it were supported by facts. 66.150.206.1 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is in the main page article or not it is included here as a statement of fact--blatantly untrue--and some student thirty years on will put it in her essay and then it will lose its aura of mendacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidrr1 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So what? David, Wikpedia has its rules about how it wants its articles to be (i.e., NPOV with verifiable public sources only) but there is a limit to what you can do to control what people say, think, feel, or for that matter, know. Not everyone is going to agree with you or share your experiences, and frankly your POV is no better than anyone else's (i.e., who the hell knows whether or not Gilbert was with Michiko when she was dying or if he is a friend of Bill's? Any POV you can consider requires accepting someone at their word, but frankly it is not even interesting unless you are the kind of person who swoons over biography at the expense of poetry). If some "student thirty years from now" puts this in her essay, pffffft, so what? I would just be glad if someone thirty years from now is even reading Gilbert's poetry, which frankly speaking is not a forgone conclusion-- his work is pretty minor. 24.34.76.245 (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize
To address an earlier point I made in revising: It turns out that the Pulitzer prize does in fact name poets who were finalists for the prize. Jack Gilbert however was never a finalist. I checked. As I stated earlier, his book jacket copy only states that he was "nominated" for a Pulitzer. This could be true, but means very little because anyone can nominate anyone for a Pulitzer Prize. Its not the type of award where it is a distinction to be nominated.

Book jacket copy tends to be just that-- puff and press, and sometimes things are stretched a little. This is a perfect example. In Gilbert's case, the editor who wrote the jacket copy was Gordon Lish, who is quite famous for doing everything possible to stir up interest in a writer he wishes to promote, and who has a taste for hyperbole and drama. Anything that comes from Lish has to be taken with a big grain of salt-- he is not above taking liberty with facts to make the product sound sexier, more colorful, and more dramatic.

Lish incidentally is the editor who made Raymond Carver's reputation, though they eventually parted ways. He was the founder and editor of The Querterly in the 1980s and was famous for being difficult, eccentric, horribly offensive at times, but absolutely devoted to writers whose work he favored. Eventually someone should write a Wiki article about his editorial career which truly did walk the creative edge.

Cheers,

TR


 * Some other things maybe need to be said or not said. I dunno. Gilbert's reputation tends to be highly romanticized, especially with that bit about him alienating himself from mainstream literary culture as some sort of aesthetic statement. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but his reason was actually pretty ordinary and common among poets: he was an alcoholic. He disappeared into that cloud for years.


 * When his first book came out, he became very famous very fast and didn't handle it well. Gordon Lish made him poetry editor of Genesis West, and Gilbert quite frankly blew it with his histrionic behaviour.  This is well documented.  Lish then fired him as poetry editor, Genesis West folded shortly thereafter, and Gilbert stormed off.  Lish's strong devotion to his work was really the only reason he ever published again. 24.128.3.223 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it disconcerting to read the above comments about Gilbert and Lish. The last paragraph on Gilbert should not have even been written. It straddles the line between envy and idiocy. Genesis West is still available for anyone to read. There are copies around. It is clear that Gilbert, as poetry editor, was overly passionate about what he would accept at the magazine as "good" work. Lish reprimanded him in the pages of the magazine, as Gilbert was too hard on one of the beat poets who has already been mostly forgotten. I don't remember his name. The funny thing is Lish published Gilbert's honest responses to the crappy poet who had his feelings hurt. Gilbert was far from being histrionic. He simply would accept nothing less than good work. The poems he did publish is proof, for he did accept some, though few. I have no knowledge of Gilbert ever storming off, and those types of comments seem unnecessary and unfair. As for Lish, and the very top comments about him as an editor, I can tell you from personal experience that he is a brilliant editor. The Lilly Library at Indiana University houses the Lish Papers, and in those boxes of pure gold, one can read the revisions Lish made to "make" Raymond Carver. And then Lish championed him, as he does all the writers he works with. In the same library are many lovely letters from Jack Gilbert to Lish, and it is in them that one learns that Lish published Gilbert on his own in Esquire without Gilbert's permission. Jack did not complain. What followed those published poems was Gilbert's greatest book MONOLITHOS. Today, Gilbert is reaping some of the praise and benefits of being accomplished and old. He lived his life the way he wanted to. And then he wrote about it. Fact is, there is a lot of jealousy and hurt feelings in this business of writing and publishing. I personally enjoy reading something that feels in my body to be true. The vindictive, or envious person, simply feels false.Mewlhouse 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The comment you are referring to is the author's opinion, but honestly, you sound just as opinionated (e.g., "crappy poet") which of course is your right. You also assume an awful lot.  For example you say "Jack did not complain."-- do you know this to be true, or are you just assuming it to be so? (Personally I don't know why Jack would complain-- perhaps he did in fact want his work to be published.) Everything you are writing, and your very strong personal reaction, kind of suggests that there may be something to this, and that a reasonable person may come away with a different take that you have, and that at the very least there is a controversy. The main part of what you wrote that I would take exception to, though, is your assertion "The last paragraph on Gilbert should not have even been written".  Come off  the high horse, please.  Are you trying to suggest that there can be only one point of view about Gilbert's work and his history with Lish and Genesis West or that nobody may breathe a word to the contrary of received opinion? the article itself must of course be kept factual and encyclopedic, but in the discussion forum there is room for different POVs. We all "enjoy reading something that feels in (our bodies) to be true" but you can't assume or require that everyone feel the same thing, nor can you expect us to reject information just because it "feels" false to you.  That's just solipsism. Thanks for your comments.  :-) 66.150.206.1 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out elsewhere, and as can be verified if you read the Wikipedia entry about the Pulitzer prize "The Pulitzer Prize Board distinguishes between "entrants" and "nominated finalists": An "entrant" is simply someone whose publisher has formally entered his or her work for consideration according to the Boards "Plan of Award". "Nominated finalists" are those selected by the juries and (since 1980) announced along with the winner for each category." Anyone can be nominated for a Pulitzer-- it's not a distinction at all. Anyone can make that claim. Winning is a distinction, as is being a "Nominated finalist" since an actual jury is involved at that point. Stating that a poet was "nominated" for a Pulitzer doesn't belong in Wikipedia, book jacket copy not withstanding, unless that person was at least a finalist. 66.150.206.1 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's listed on the Pulitzer website, no matter what. http://www.pulitzer.org/cyear/1983w.html Right there. Simply click on the button at the bottom of the link that clearly reads "Nominated Finalists for 1983" and go up to Poetry, where Monolithos is listed. Personal distinctions aside, the book and Gilbert are mentioned in the nominated finalists for 1983; the Pulitzer committee makes the distinction as the prize-awarding institution. If you wish to make this fine-lined distinction, please consider it for all books nominated for the Pulitzer Prize mentioned on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I think this mention of a nomination is factually-based, informational, and valid. Icarus of old (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Death date?
The Academy of American Poets,  ''Slate and IMdb, among others, are stating that Gilbert died on Sunday November 11. Span (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I emailed the Academy of American Poets to clarify and they say that the announcement of his death was made on the Tuesday but he died on the Sunday. They say there was an error in Knopf's press release. Span (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi - my information came from Henry Lyman, Jack Gilbert's secretary and literary executor. He assured me that Jack had died on Tuesday 13th at 4.30am in the morning. I therefore used that date in today's obituary in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/nov/20/jack-gilbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Astley (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Gilbert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104092734/http://www.gf.org/fellows/5329-jack-gilbert to http://www.gf.org/fellows/5329-jack-gilbert

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)