Here's a taste of Prospect's true colours:

"The future of the right depends on three rather more practical developments
in its politics. The first is the adoption of a core set of principles
around which factional fusion can acquire firmer foundations. The second is
the recognition of the need for a transformation in political style and
language to suit an era where class and income are not automatic indicators
of voting allegiance, where the middle class is likely to be cross-pressured
by "right wing" economic views (distrust of high taxation and the capacity
of the state alone to deliver efficient services) combined with "left wing"
cultural opinions (on gender, race, sexual orientation, on pluralist family
structures and even to some extent on social justice). The third is an
electoral strategy which, in contrast to the approach taken since 1997,
regards recovery in London and southern England as the precondition for a
broader national revival.

The philosophical basis for a Portillo-led fusion within the Tory party
could, I would tentatively suggest, be based on the following six political
principles"

and:

(I love this)

"To draw upon American analogies, the above principles represent a mixture
of the policy platforms put forward by George W Bush and John McCain in the
Republican primaries last year, proposals which were strikingly different
from those which had been advanced by Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan and Steve
Forbes four years earlier. The Republicans could not have become credible
had they not been willing to undertake a shift in philosophy and
presentation. The same is true for the Tories."

This is what undelies the utter bullshit that is being presented to us as a
reasoned debate about poetry, a covert paeon to the values of Bush junior
and Michael Portillo. God help us all if we let these people get away with
it.

Best

Dave





----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snider" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Poetry in PROSPECT


> I said nothing about the historical accuracy of the piece, or about the
> accuracy of its claims about poetry other than in the US -- only that
> the description of the current scene here seems accurate. Dana Gioia is
> far from being the best of the poets working with traditional metrics
> (Sam Gwynn and Rhina Espaillat are my favorites), but his tireless
> efforts to make a place for formal poetry in the presses and the schools
> have certainly made a difference for the better.
>
> On Sunday, July 8, 2001, at 06:54 AM, david.bircumshaw wrote:
>
> > Hi Candice, I will be doing some curiosity peerings.
> >
> > As Alison, noted, the magazine seems to have a distinctive flavour of
> > the
> > New World Order, despite one or two impressive contributors, and, for
> > Kent,
> > I think there's been a whole series of posts, such as Anastasios', which
> > have detailed some of the distortions of Lind's article. His liking
> > for a
> > certain strand in British poetry is very apt, as articles of his kind
> > frequently issue from certain quarters over here. It was depressingly
> > familiar in that.
> > I particularly liked its historical falsifications: the absence of
> > memory
> > about free-verse in languages other than English, the amusing erasure
> > of the
> > influence of the Beats in the loosening up of 1950's American formalism.
> > And I loved Joseph's little town in NY State. Long may such coffee house
> > meetings occur.
> >
> > I notice Michael |Snider's assertion of the 'truth' of the article
> > hasn't
> > been backed up with any detail, except matters Dana Gioia, a figure who
> > has
> > tediously touted before now by the Brit establishment as 'the' American
> > poet
> > of today.
> >
> > I'm tempted to say Fukiyamas to the revisionists but won't, publically
> > at
> > least.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 12:38 AM
> > Subject: Re: Poetry in PROSPECT
> >
> >
> >> Thanks, Dave--I'm curious about _Prospect_ too. Since it's on your
> >> side of
> >> the pond, though, maybe you could sniff around some--? A glance through
> > its
> >> back issues suggests that this Lind fellow is a regular contributor,
> >> although not on poetry up to now ("and a good thing too," as the Fish
> > would
> >> have it). Wonder where he got the idea that Eliot, Pound, and Ashbery
> >> were/are academics. (Did the first two earn PhDs anywhere, as he
> >> alleges?
> >> News to me, if so.) So give us the scoop on the rag, do!
> >> Thanks--Candice
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> on 7/7/01 9:57 AM, david.bircumshaw at [log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just been having a look, Candice, and hilarity vied with disbelief at
> > the
> >>> wriggling distortions of that article.
> >>>
> >>> The ancient art of the dressed-up half-truth, I'd say.
> >>>
> >>> Like to know who, and what, 's actually behind 'Prospect', and what
> >>> its
> >>> undeclared agenda is.
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 11:26 PM
> >>> Subject: FW: Poetry in PROSPECT
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Check out this hilarious (and error-riddled) piece by an American
> >>> journalist
> >>>> in a Brit journal that blurbs itself as "_the_ magazine for the
> >>>> intellectually curious general reader...the intelligent monthly based
> > in
> >>>> Britain - but with an international mind and an international
> >>>> readership"--but with no fact-checker on staff apparently....
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's hear it for Dana Gioia, Slo-Po!
> >>>>
> >>>> Candice
> >>
> >
>