Roddy wrote:
" And re Poetry Review, which I have to stand up for as a good committee man
oughta, the New Plain Style is only one of many poetries which Peter has
given space to. It may well be more to his own taste, but I think this it's
unavoidable to expect an absolute broadness in what is not really an
independent magazine - its first duty is to the thousands of Society
members, most of whom are not poetry experts. I realise this is opening the
floodgates (or at least knocking that twig off the top of the weir), but I'd
be glad to hear gripes or hurrahs about the Review and will carry them back
to Poetry Central HQ without a pinch of salt."
1. Christina Patterson, new Director of The Poetry Society has been widely
reported as
saying, that the Society "exists to represent the interests of Seamus Heaney
and Carol Ann
Duffy, as well as those of the young poet publishing their first slim
volume, the performance poet struggling to be heard in the pub on a Friday
night and for those ‘ordinary people’ who found that writing a poem ...
seemed the most appropriate way to express their grief at
the sudden death of a princess."
However, she doesn't mention linguistically innovative poets, Black British
poets, British Asian poets? Well, obviously, I didn't expect her to make a
list of every conceivable variety of poetry but: Are they invited to the
party or not? Did she just forget? No wonder many feel excluded by this form
of inclusiveness.
2. Poetry Review has not _consistently_ represented a broad range of
poetries. For example, how many black poets have been published across the
last six issues or so? The special issue approach is deeply flawed in this
respect. "Oh we've not done the Australians for five years - it's time for
another look." There ought to be a wider range of poetries in every issue
and if Forbes feels that he isn't getting it submitted then he bloody well
ought to go out and commission it. According to young Christina, that's part
of his role - to be representative.
3. You can't have a Society claiming to be widely representative and at the
same time ask us to commiserate with an editor who's apparently constrained
to be the opposite. C'mon, which is it?
4. The quality of reviewing has got worse. Reading recent issues has been
like eavesdropping on meetings of a backscratching society.
5. The worst thing about the New Plain Style was that it distorted history.
Forbes's editorials were written as if mainstream poetry had been
deprivileged and under attack for most of the twentieth century. In fact,
the Movement had effectively removed any vestiges of ascendancy that
modernism/innovation still enjoyed. He also misrepresented what Pound and
Eliot had actually said and written. As Ian Gregson pointed out at the time,
this created an atmosphere in which any sign of _difficulty_ got jumped on.
That's enough to be going on with.
cheers
David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|