Hi Jill,
Well I am sorry to hear this continues. I have heard of it previously, but not read the various letters in my distant land, though I have to say, I don't think that's necessary to really reply. The excerpts you mention
"'integrity' is a catchword he starts with
how a
>poet lives their life requires and authenticity which will certainly affect their poems'.
>
not 'authentic' or even, 'grass roots'
> 'their life experiences are very limited'
illustrate that viewpoint wherein the poet is labelled, rather than the poem read.
Rather than reading a poem in light of what it says, in light of the context its own language creates, McCauley and his ilk use the supposed moral failings of the poet or the poet's "body of work" or "work processes" in order to dismiss any reading at all.
And surely, it is not by accident that it is two women poets being so accused of moral failings, or the claim being made that due to these
moral failings, they should be. . .what? not read, not funded? burnt at the poetry stake?
Perhaps a certain confused kind of dumbdamentalism (a typo, but it fits) in poetry just as fundamentalism is at work in the world. It's difficult, though since the sins are defined by the accuser. "Being inauthentic" was the great sin of the self-actualization movement. Not being "grass roots enough" is the mortal sin of the populist politician. These failings have nothing to do with poetry which is neither about self-actualization or running for office.
Still, it is very difficult to defend oneself from such amorphous terms, precisely the point, I think. And no doubt McCauley would assume that he is doing all this on behalf of the integrity of poetry, when the very thing that poetry does need to be preserved from is the usages to which he puts it.
Best,
Rebecca
|