Deb -
I can't see much war-mongering in JK's article: rather a criticism of
established modes of poetic politicking which are in the end
self-defeating; and also the identification of a _particular_ bunch of
Sydney poets, which he doesn't, to my reading, suggest is the whole of
Sydney. From my keyhole, it's impossible to deny that these "war games"
exist; I've encountered them as well. But identifying their existence
isn't the same as fanning the flames. Surely more a desire towards the
opposite:
'Australian poets don't need an industry, they need to recognise that
difference is desirable. I often wonder what poets read when they get
home at night; there is so much animosity between poets here that I doubt
they even glance at the work of other Australian writers. A well-known
Australian poet once said to me that while he admired many of the skills
and qualities of "the other side's" work, he could not do so openly. The
reason: limited government grants, limited publishing
opportunities and a small number of "places in history". This
consciousness of position, of role play, is the sign of a colonial
mentality. Cringe we might, but it's still there.'
And this too seemed an honest general picture of the kinds of possible
strengths and contradictory frustrations of Australian poetry, without
looking for a fake national "unity" (am I sick of the kind of statement
which talks about "the way forward for Australian poetry", as if you can
map it out):
'So, the State of Poetry in Australia? Paranoid, internalised,
fragmented, fraught with tensions. Also diverse, adaptable, inventive,
pluralistic and outward looking. They seem like different portraits, but
they are of the same mosaic, the same canvas with its fragmentations and
mixed media overlays. Ironically, this is a healthy way for it to be. The
state can't get and hasn't got hold of it.'
The article seemed to me more a critique of various resistances to
pluralistic or international notions of Australian poetry, and of the
defence of a fond idea of national and poetic identity which persists,
and which is hostile to any number of newer or different influences and
poetries; to my thinking, _not_ talking about these things is more likely
to enflame the wars. (It also makes me think of Borges' essay on
Argentine literary nationalism, which I've often thought could be
transposed here). But I like Stravinsky's statement: "Music is my
country". (Or words to that effect).
I'm less inclined to an ideal of democratic inclusiveness than John is,
but how much I prefer the assumption of a possibility of dialogue -
mounted passionately and without defensiveness, and not assuming or
looking for agreement - to a collection of frigid camps. How can I grow
as a poet, if everyone agrees with me, and if anyone who disagrees with
me is, ipso facto, _wrong_? JK mentions the Jamie Grant/Alan Wearne
face-off: there's a lesson in what to avoid.
And yes, I'm a Melbourne poet, but all that means is that I live by the
sea in Williamstown and take out my rubbish on Tuesdays -
best
Alison
|