Hmm. He's certainly spitting chips. Like Roger, I'm baffled by the attacks
on Tuma's anthology, which I find such a stimulating and fascinating and
necessary take on post war British poetry. And "elitism" is not, in my
books, a dirty word, and certainly not in the arts; and neither need it be
the opposite of "popular". I find myself, yet again, wondering at all
these polarisations, and all these apparently mutual needs to censor.
One thing that stuck out, I thought: Astley's claim that poetry does not
sell on merit. This begs the question whether, if this is the case, merit
ceases to be a basis for publication.
I don't follow these arguments closely enough to be totally aware of the
debate, such as it is. But the gender thing is there, for sure; it's all
men arguing. All these mutual accusations of "damage"...while poor little
princess poetry sits downcast in her castle, the noble knights have these
strange little tourneys to defend her virtue. What you get is a feeling that
everyone is threatened by something; a monster called "democracy" of
"academics" or "postmodernists" or whatever. Snicker snack!
I notice that Astley takes a swipe at Paterson and O'Brien down the bottom
of the article. So he's not quite in that boat, either. And if he's right
in his points about so-called "minority" poetry (women, black, whatever),
then there's an issue to be addressed there.
I'm kind of interested to hear what Chris Emery thinks of it, since he has a
robust and practical attitude to marketing poetry.
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|