Been pondering this Jane and I must ask you what label exactly do you think
Robert Potts is pushing? I honestly can't find any connection (other than
words) between many the poet's he mentions. The work of Manson, Halsey and
Capildeo for example could not be more disimilar from each other and you can
extend that many of the other poets he mentions. I'm defending a man who
has never shown the least interest in my own work but I'm rather glad he is
bringing to note some extremely fine poets who otherwise wouldn't get near a
national newspaper.
Cheers,
Geraldine
> Granted, Geraldine, that's a fair point. Please forgive my acerbic tone;
> it was, I admit, a knee-jerk
> reaction. However, if, in his review of, as you call them, his personal
> poetry hot-spots of 2005,
> Robert Potts had hinted anywhere at the existence of alternative poetries,
> it would have been quite
> wrong of me to have criticised the article. But he didn't. What genuinely
> concerns me here is that
> people 'outside' the poetry world - i.e. those rare beasts, readers - may
> read such an article
> without the benefit of being able to see the wider picture beyond it. To
> briefly illustrate my point,
> Ian McMillan's piece was an inclusive one, Robert Potts' exclusive. I know
> which angle I prefer,
> both as a reader and a writer of poetry.
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
|