1. Apologies to Alan Marshfield for not seeing the quote marks around the
first para of his mammoth posting. My broadside is transferred to Peter
Nicholson then. Hi there Peter Nicholson.
2. My view of Porter is completely subjective and I admit I have not read him
for a long time. Can anyone out there convince me that I should have another
look. I'm ready... not with a lot of enthusiasm mind you.
3. Very negative views of the Dana Gioia article (Can Poetry Matter' -
Atlantic Monthly '92) from Keith Tuma & David Kennedy but i found it
reasonable. I know nothing about his background, his own poetry (though the
Beach Boys thing reminded me of typical Brit third division stuff) or the
personal politics that Tuma and Kennedy seem to be accusing him of so I am
reading the article in good faith. What he gives as an 'explanation' for the
poor state of poetry is limited to one field (the appropriation of the art to
the US universities at the expense of any wider audience) and one country,
because what he says certainly does not apply in UK. That alone points to his
focus as being weak but nevertheless it does provide a partial view. That,
combined with the mostly negative view of the Universities' part, makes the
article biased but, looking at it neutrally, isn't there a degree of truth
there that needs serious addressing?
David Kennedy himself, in his pamphlet 'Smoking, Eating and Speaking with the
Dead' provides another valid partial 'explanation'. So why the antipathy?
4. Related to that sour grapes view of Gioia's angle is Douglas Clark's
"> These poets who
> criticise the current marketplace are those whose work doesnt appeal
> to the editors. They are trying to create a market for their own work"
and like David Bircumshaw I find that a very iffy pounce. Douglas you seem to
live in a rather simple black-and-white world - too much influenced by your
cat perhaps?
Tim A.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|