For some as-yet unknown reason, I feel compelled to defend the Norton Anthology against the various charges being brought against it here. So far, it's been accused of being a tool for "academically lazy" professors, [essentially] a superfluous moneygrubbing update, and something which (somehow) renders authors "boring." Another person feels that it's too poetry- and essay-heavy to be representative of the covered periods.
I'll confess that I don't really understand these accusations. It is both what it looks like and what it claims to be: 3,000 pages with as much bang for your literary buck as is possible. The only novels included are those which are exceedingly important and/or representative of a period... which is as it should be.
And frequent updates (which take place every few years -- hardly a serious issue for most people) are absolutely necessary. A static canon would be boring, and likely would leave scholars with nothing to do. I, for one, am happy with the authors added in the seventh edition. <shrug>
It's an outstanding introduction to two centuries of English lit.