I appreciate the specifics, about WMA, Geraldine. In fact I think my
first post on this issue was asking for more specifics. Also, since
my last post, I've been thinking some more about your final point,
i.e., "You surely can't get less racist than saying we don't give a
damn who or what you are," and my response that, on the contrary, the
way to erode racism is to know more, not less, about who or what
people are culturally.
I was thinking about this some more this morning when I heard George
Bush on the radio making his glib blanket statements about Iraq, i.e.,
when the "Iraqi people" are able to stand up "democratically," then
the "U.S."will "stand down." Then, afterwards, I listened to a
discussion with retired general William Odum, who carefully presented
the paradoxes, complications, and responsibilities involved, and
Thomas Barnett from the US Naval War College, who broke down the
concept of the "Iraqi people," into Kurd, Shi'ite, and Sunni,
investing at least some specificity and historical complication into
the scenario typically glossed over by Bush. Thomas Barnett neglected
to break down "U.S." in the same way.
I largely agreed with Odum, who advocates withdrawal and colloquy,
less so with Barnett, who advocates continued ocupation. But I could
listen to both because they spoke with some awareness of history, both
in terms of Iraq and the U.S.A.; their discourse seemed to be able to
accommodate detail, subtlety, paradox, difficulty, partiality,
lose-lose situations in a way that George Bush's cannot. Bush's
discourse, as a result, though compelling perhaps for millions, is
suffocating and maddening for millions more.
Now Geraldine I am not comparing you to George Bush. I'm just saying
I'm trying to think about the issues that are being raised and using
whatever comes to hand (in this case on the radio in my car). Please
forgive my awkwardnesses.
I appreciate your providing us with detailed information about the
history and policy of the WMA. I think those examples, and specific
details, are what knowledge and judgement is founded on, though
probably in some areas, like poetry, I privilege intuition and
unconscious direction.
I know you probably didn't mean to shout but the large number of
all-cap words in your previous post could be read as shouting. My
principal involvement in this discusion has been to argue for an
appreciation of the broadness and diversity of our own membership on
this list. You say that
I read your post as a some kind of rejection of multicultural Britain.
I hope I didn't do that: I haven't lived in England for more than 20
years. My intention was to say: hey, you're speaking about race in a
way I am not used to, I'm reading it, in my context here, as
disrespectful. It's not that I'm right and you're wrong or vice versa
but that our contexts and how we speak about race are different. What
I'm saying is: our own membership here is diverse
and maybe we have as much to gain by respecting that and not presuming
that cultural values, even humor, is shared. I know this probably is
an argument for political correctness. I think in international
gatherings, as we have here, political correctness is probably a
useful tool, at least to establish ground.
I both do and don't see poetry as a separate issue. I have confessed
above that intuition is often my rudder in poetry, and I am as
faithful a servant of my Muse as I can be. At the same time, when I
consider the history of poetry, or the making of the poet, of who is
allowed to be a poet and when, and all issues relating to the economy
of poetry (publishing, funding, employment, status, etc), then class,
race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, age, political
allegiance and expression, education, and many other factors seem
relevant, as cultural categories which can determine our proximity, or
otherwise, to power and articulation. So I have my own primal
relationship with my Muse, where basically I serve and that's that.
But writing poetry is not the whole story. An audience is just as
important, in my view. Poetry is a social undertaking, political too
often. Well I'm finding this quite hard to express so I'll just halt
there.
You said it better: if poetry can blow the tops off your boiled eggs
then maybe it warrants a domestic policy.
Mairead
On 8/23/05, Geraldine Monk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> <I'm not saying, Geraldine, your anger against WMA is not justified. I'm
> saying I don't really know who or what WMA is but I'm learning and please
> don't shout at me meanwhile.>
>
>
> So sorry Mairead - wasn't meaning to shout - but the case I was making was
> very specific which is why I went into so much detail. So to have you and
> Susan read it as some kind of a rejection of mulitculural Britain took me
> aback. (The Modest Proposal by the way was by Paul not by me - I merely
> thought it obvious that it was Big Brother that Paul was taking the mickey
> out of not the ethnic community - it obviously doesn't travel).
>
> < If I start talking about RISCA
> (Rhode Island State Council on the Arts) to you, I won't expect you toshare
> in my contumely .>
>
> O.K. and I wouldn't jump in if I didn't understand the context (it's a full
> time job keeping up with what our own funding bodies are up to) but I
> certainly wouldn't object to you talking about it if you thought it was
> going to effect your individual rights to free expression and the freedom to
> publish only what you think is of artistic value. If that is what was a
> stake I would support your cause.
>
>
>
> <I don't agree with your last point: "You surely can't get less racist
> than saying we don't give a damn who or what you are." ... So I'd be happier
> saying: "I care a great deal who and what you are. Tell me about it. I'll
> do my best to listen." I think it's damned hard to learn about someone
> else's difference because our own gloss, our own inherited way of looking at
> things, goes on top of everything.>
>
> Not meaning to chop out your reference to your research Mairead but if I
> could just take you up on this (very quietly of course!!!). The problem
> with this is that it's about people in general rather than people writing
> poetry that excites you.
>
> We get a lot of unsolicited m/s's dropping through the letter box and most
> of it is truly awful - by anyones standards but their own. It's quite
> evident that these people don't read poetry (they certainly haven't read the
> poetry that West House Books publishes because if they had they wouldn't
> waste a stamp sending it to us). Now to say I care about these people
> would be a lie. I don't. I don't give a toss about the woman who sent us a
> swathe of utter dross this week telling us she intended to become a
> household name! Sorry but she can feck orf. Apart from being totally
> unrealistic - our poet laureates don't even become household names - it's
> enough to make you weep with the pettiness of such ambition. However, I
> might care about some of these people if I met them down the pub and they
> turned out to be nice people - which I'm sure most of them are. I care
> about people socially but that is very distinct from my reaction to a poem.
> Now if one day someone does send us some poetry that blows the tops off my
> boiled eggs then I will care very much about that person and I'll want to
> know everything about them. And if that person turns out to be a young
> ethnic guy or gal nodody would be happier than me. But I just don't think
> WMA is going to make this a possiblily by there half-baked badly thought out
> policy.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Geraldine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mairead
>
>
>
> On 8/22/05, Geraldine Monk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Well I can certainly see a colossal breakdown in cultural difference if
> > Paul's 'identikit' proposal wasn't read with that deep and savage irony
> > that
> > passes for humour in England. That's how I read because that's how it was
> > intended. And I also second Paul's second post.
> >
> > Anyway with all this bafflement going on I can only conclude that the
> > subtleties and ultimate common sense of my argument has been totally lost
> > and I'm at a loss how to say it more plainly. I have said in almost every
> > post on this matter that I fully champion anything that will encourage
> > ANYONE including the young the ethnic the minorities, into writing
> > poetry.
> > Why is this baffling?
> >
> > HOWEVER my argument is and has been from the start that there are sensible
> > ways to go about this and there are brainless ways to go about this. And
> > a
> > blanket diktat from WMA that ALL presses, no matter what their aesthetic,
> > should now include young ethnic poets is one of the more brainless
> > suggestions. THIS IS NOT A RACIST COMMENT!!!!!! Now if you really take
> > on
> > board what I have said in past letters, like holding workshops, or the WMA
> > funding a magazine with specific intent to highlight young talented
> > writers,
> > or targeting presses that may best accommodate specific writers then
> > that's
> > constructive. But their proposal isn't constructive it's dumb and it's
> > sinister.
> >
> > You don't believe me? O.K. Here's some more of the infamous conversation
> > Glenn had the WBA.
> >
> > Glenn 'My only criteria for publishing something is literary quality'
> >
> > WMA person: Literary quality is of no interest to me whatsoever'
> >
> > Straight from the horses mouth! In other words they don't give a shit if
> > your young ethic poet is a load a crap as long as your poet is young and
> > ethnic. Now, as writers, if you don't find that outrageous, from a body
> > purporting to support the arts , I think you should. It's an abomination.
> > It's also a staggering display of patronising, condescension towards young
> > ethnic minorities that really could be construed as racist.
> >
> > Both Mairead and Susan seem to imply in their letters that they love
> > cultural integration and Paul and I are against it. Nothing could be
> > further from the truth. But we don't live in just a culturally integrated
> > society we also live in a multicultural society and the two are not the
> > same
> > thing.
> >
> > O.K. now, I'll give you an example of what I mean. Sheffield Poetry
> > International. Despite the fact that the first 3 readings where held in
> > a
> > multicultural cafe which is heavily frequented by all types, ages and
> > races
> > during the day not one member of the audience (and we got big audiences)
> > was
> > of black or ethnic origins - not even for our black writer. Why? Search
> > me. It was disappointing but was it our fault? I don't know what more we
> > could have done to make everyone welcome. Now that's multiculturalism
> > for
> > you - people follow their own (not the indigenous) culture. And why
> > should
> > they like or listen to 'experimental' poetry fer god's sake!! (I'd like
> > to
> > convince them they'd like to do so but I'd like to do that to the
> > community
> > as a whole - it isn't that easy).
> >
> > And saying it isn't that easy brings me to my last point. Mairead, yes we
> > do have arts council's here and it's necessary because we don't have the
> > university set-up that you have in America for creative writers nor the
> > prize and awards for people of our ilk (they're strictly 'only mainstream
> > poets from a small handful of accredited presses need apply'. )
> >
> > So the Art's Council is the only way most writers have of financing
> > projects
> > - or going out to work and ploughing your own money into projects which
> > unless you're on a good screw is very limiting. And that brings me to my
> > very very last point. There is a striking difference between you/Susan
> > and
> > me/Paul/Glenn and that is that you both work in universities with a flow
> > of
> > bright young things of all ethnic backgrounds passing through and we
> > don't.
> > We live in the English provinces and go out to get the morning paper or
> > go
> > to work and probably met the same people day in day out without flux or
> > influx. We just don't have that ease of access that you have. We come
> > across other poets through magazines and other grapevine outlets. And we
> > don't care or even ask what age, colour, sex, background they're from if
> > we
> > like their stuff we like it. That's how most small presses in England
> > run.
> > They run for the love of poetry. Now you may think this is wrong but we
> > are poets not a race relations officers. You surely can't get less racist
> > than saying we don't give a damn who or what you are.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geraldine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Geraldine Monk
> > www.westhousebooks.co.uk
>
>
|