on Thursday, September 21, 2000 12:04 PM
Debbie Comerford <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:-
> offence taken. what would you prefer, dear hugh - since you are one of
the
> poets i refer to as 'emergent' - would you prefer 'new' (god help us),
'next
> generation (hardly accurate), a phallic 'rising' (????), some tightly
wound
> definite term like the 'post-generation of '68', or the pretentious
> 'postmodern', perhaps 'immature' or 'amateur' might be applicable to
certain
> poets??
>
> (for those who don't have any idea what hughy and i are talking about, my
> thesis is a study of Australia's 'emergent' poetries (1990-) which
includes
> poets who have published their first collection since 1990.)
>
>
>
> hugh (and anyone interested) - do you have any better suggestions???? i
am
> open to different terms
>
> i await your gracious reply
> regards
> deb
Dear Deb
Many of my friends are unpublished poets in book
form because opportunities are scarce and publishing
a first book in Australia has been encroyably difficult
for a decade.
Because the Australia Council classes those without
a published book as 'emerging', these writers are ineligible
for overseas studios or decent sized grants because
such is the preserve of 'developing writers' (and to be
classed as 'developing' - you must be an author). This
is deeply unfair in my book (and in that of The Australian
Society of Authors). Some poets only become authors after 10,
15, 20 or 25 years of journal/magazine/newspaper contributions.
Your classifications preserve an unfortunate governmental
distinction, which oppresses my unpublished peers. It also
sounds like it describes poets who have trouble getting out
of bed in the mornings...
Why not '21st century poets'?
sincerely
Hugh Tolhurst
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|