"like Peter I would be interested to know any further about the TLS piece,
where I think other considerations must surely apply."
Here it is:
"Generally, poets crave readers, even critics, more than riches. It was a
surprise, therefore, to find the poet Andrew Crozier writing recently "As an
economic activity, poetry is marginal. No one wishes to admit this." Perhaps
not in Mr Crozier's circles; but everywhere else.
The case in point was the Tyneside poet, Barry MacSweeney, who died last
month, having been an alcoholic for over thirty years. An obituary by Mr
Crozier appeared in the Guardian, and then, so taken by the catalogue of
failure were the editors, that a further piece on MacSweeney was
commissioned. This covered four pages in the G2 section, and was decorated
by photographs of the poet at various stages of his dismal life.
Not in his wildest dreams could MacSweeney have imagined this amount of
coverage. Fat lot of good it'll do him now. Interested to learn how he fared
when alive, we consulted our archivist and discovered that no book by
MacSweeney had been reviewed in the Guardian for the past fifteen years.
(Before anyone asks, yes, the TLS did review his work, and quite favourably,
too.) Poetry is certainly marginal economically, but the death of a luckless
poet makes a decent photo-spread."
This seems to me to be about national papers doing a spot of willy-waving at
each other, and in particular the Murdoch organisation getting its own back
on Burn's article referring to the Paladin MacSweeney being pulped by
Murdoch.
cheers
David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|