I've often thought that "poetries" are defined by what they exclude rather
than what thy draw together. But I've always thought of such constructs as
shifting in the face of reading. So many groupings and anthologies seem like
propositions of pre-eminence rather than formal taxonomies. Such framings do
seem part of the mechanics of our industry; merely ways of raising new
exchanges and dialogues, or rather emphases -- and of course staking out
territories, boundaries, terms of engagement. Flag waving. But such
collections all fail long term to sustain themselves. They all get
remaindered and gather dust on the shelves of charity shops and provincial
second-hand bookstores. Was it Goldstein who said in a different
context,"Gentleman, include me out"? I find we are all so different. I'm not
interested in pluralism, and I find pacifism difficult to sustain in the
face of political oppression and cultural terrorism. War can be a good thing
(I know that is a loaded statement). Some things are worth fighting for.
But we all finally sit in solitary. I was sat with JH Prynne a week or so
ago and someone said to him "What about the Reader?". "The Reader! The
Reader!" he scoffed, "Oh my God! Open the cage, let them all in!"
Anthologies are the temporary instruments of the trade, signals,
counterblasts, and as such can be healthy ways to revitalise debates and
positions. As to spatiality and location: we're all on the planet aren't we,
all nearly human? Still, poetry is for the private cage. I believe.
As for divisions and poetry wars in the UK I think Matthew has it right
about the general sprawl of poetic culture. Though the problem is who is
recording this, most poetic history is still written from the centre. And
the centre will always be London. Like France, the capital is the culture of
the country. We don't get to hear bout the poetry groups and exchanges being
made in Scunthorpe. Though Huddersfield still gets a look in.
All best
C
|