Jamie, the best way to clear all this up is if we retrace our steps in this discussion. It was my response to the initial “popularity” of the Maximus thread, while the thread we are now in (the subject of which is about non-academic avantgarde poetry being ignored by academic avantgarde “creators of poetic taste”—if we can call it that) has only had one or two participants—you, me, Tim and Luke. My slight annoyance at this led me to comment:

‘I just noticed all the responses to the Maximus Poems (written by an academic and publicised by US academia) thread while this thread I'm writing in has been ignored. Quite ironic.’

By saying this I was making the point that it is ironic that a thread that is about academia ignoring non-academic poetry is, itself, being ignored by other members on this list in favour of a thread about a poem that is celebrated within avantgarde academic circles.

That was my sole objective. I was making no comment about the status or otherwise of creative writing classes, nor, as you keep repeating, making aspersions about academia in general. Your response to this was to say:

‘David, I’m not sure where the irony lies. This is a site where poetry is discussed, so that it seems natural that an enquiry about a poet should elicit a number of responses.’

Apart from not seeing the irony, you missed the larger point, by not pointing out that the poet in question (Olson) was a leading academic and was celebrated by fellow academics—as was The Maximus Poems. That was why it was relevant for me to mention in my comment that he was an academic and that the poems were publicised/celebrated/found of value by US academia. I did not, by making these observations, intend for them to be seen as aspersions on academics or academia in general. 

I would have been prepared to leave it at that had you not gone on to say:

‘Also, calling a poet ‘an academic’ doesn’t necessarily tell us much about his or her work. I’d be very disinclined anyway to use ‘academic’ as a catch-all pejorative.’

And adding this:

‘Olson was a visiting professor, presumably teaching creative writing(?) and even if, like Berryman, say, he’d been teaching literature, there is no reason to suppose his work would therefore by marred by ‘academicism’.’

The commonsense meaning of this sentence is that: because Olson was teaching creative writing this didn’t mean that Olson could be truly associated with academia. But Olson, as you might know, was very much an academicism and theorist, and had many acolytes and followers within academia. 

So it was from this comment of yours that I suspected you might think that creative writing was not best viewed as an academic decline, as opposed to “theory”, which most people do see as a valid academic discipline. For the record, I think both are valid academic disciplines. Not being a poet or academic, I can only go by my informal reading around the subject. There are some contemporary avantgarde poets who see creative writing as very much an academic discipline, and many have formulated various theories about what it is to practice poetry as a poet—some of these theories are too complicated for me to understand let alone describe. 

So it was in this overall context that my questioning your position about theory and practice was framed. I felt that your “devaluing” of Olson’s academic status because he taught creative writing was, perhaps, a subtle slur on creative writing for it not being an academic discipline, as you saw it, or if it could claim to be one, was not as “rigorously intellectual” as theory is seen as being.

I’m aware that you once taught creative writing yourself, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you thought of it in academic terms—many creative writing tutors probably don’t think what they do is academic in a higher education sense. 

The reason I don’t want to be drawn into definitions of what “academic poetry” (specifically the avantgarde type) is, is because, as Tim has said, the actual term is not that helpful, and only serves as a “catch-all” for poetry that, in today’s avantgarde context, is written by academics and their students for a readership mainly consisting of fellow academics, students and publishers of avantgarde poetry. Perhaps a better term to describe this would be “avantgarde poetic exclusiveness” or something along those lines.





--------------Original Message-------------------

Jamie McKendrick wrote:

You should be careful of accusing anyone of dishonesty, David - traditional 
grounds for a duel. And this is not the first time you've resorted to 
insults during a disagreement with me.

   I’m happy to answer any honest questions as honestly as I can.  Whatever 
inferences you have drawn from my posts, wilfully or otherwise, as far as I’m 
aware I have never either said or ‘suggested’ that ‘“practice” was not as 
academic as “theory”’, as from the outset I have consistently questioned 
the whole concept of ‘academic’ in relation to poetry.  Whether that causes 
offence to imaginary figures is a matter of complete indifference to me. You 
have kept asking me to justify something I have never claimed. What my 
comments have 'suggested' to you is something for which I can't reasonably 
be held to account. That is a classic example of a straw man argument. I 
haven’t changed my views at all (though I'd be happy to if I heard something 
convincing) - I have repudiated the term academic from the outset as being 
of little interest, and instead have asked questions and offered some views 
about how 'valid' these courses are. As I've been writing poems for more 
than four decades, what weird take on the world would make you think I 
wanted to belittle the practice of writing?
   If you really are so anxious to have my reply you should help by giving 
some explanation of what on earth the word ‘academic’ means to you. But as 
you seem extraordinarily unforthcoming about answering any question I put to 
you, I'm even prepared to help by giving some possible definitions along 
with my replies.

  If by academic you mean:
1) taught in the academy - then creative writing is certainly academic.

2) essentially a body of theoretical or historic knowledge being taught and 
received - then I’d answer yes and no. In the courses I’ve taught and others 
I know of, the practice/ theory ratio is usually around 60/40%, more often 
70/30%. I suspect that the theoretical component (see 4) has been installed 
partly to justify the subject as an 'academic' discipline, but I only add 
this point as you seem fixated on the question of academic status.

3) a traditional academic course such as chemistry or English literature 
(the latter itself only about a 100 years old) - then my answer is no. In 
Britain it’s something of a fledgling discipline - like Translation Studies 
(though that is usually much more theoretical than practical). I would add 
that a number of English depts. here raised objections to the inclusion of 
Creative Writing on the grounds that it was not 'academic'. (I don't share 
that view for reasons I have explained, a central one being that 'academic' 
as a term has no importance for me.) Those objections have now more or less 
evaporated, either because the argument has been won for its inclusion or 
because these courses have proved popular and provide universities with a 
lot of revenue, an ever more important consideration.
(Perhaps someone on the list like Robert Hampson, who has long experience 
teaching both literature and writing in university, could explain this 
better, as I've not had any first-hand experience of these disputes.)

4) a valid body of learning that is worth the students' time and expense - 
to that the answer can't really be a straight yes or no. I've made it clear 
I think it is a valid subject of study (in both its practical and 
theoretical aspects) and explained the importance of practice for poetry, 
and so your inference that for me it is somehow 'second-best' is patently a 
false one. But I'm also aware that poets have happily done without an 
institutional base for thousands of years, and I see no noticeable 
improvement in the art since it's been taught in universities. Whether 
students profit from it or not will be down to personal experience and of 
course to the quality of the teaching they receive.

If you have a different understanding of 'academic' you should explain it, 
otherwise it would be impossible to give you any other meaningful response.
I hope this tedious topic can be dispelled. If this effort is rewarded by 
further jibes and insults, then henceforth I'll ignore them.
And if anyone could step in to shed a more interesting light on this topic, 
or miraculously re-direct it, I'd be most grateful.

Jamie