Jeremy
this is a very good argument on Astley and the more important issues around
his lecture. I'm now even more confused (or malleable?) but in a positive
way.
To me, because of the work I do, I suppose my responses really concern the
accepted sphere of poetry (its present making, distribution and audience)
versus creating new forums for poetry (its making, distribution, audience) -
except I now detest the word 'new!'
Best wishes, Rupert
> Astley makes the observation that poetry by women and minorities seldom
> gets
> reviewed by the Guardian. I suppose we can all agree that the paper's
> record
> is atrocious in this respect.
>
> But let's not be misled. Astley is playing a rhetorical trick. He
> writes early
> in the lecture:
>
> "Readers don't have access to the diverse range of poetry being
> written, not
> just in Britain, but from around in the world, because much of the
> poetry
> establishment - including many publishers and reviewers - has become
> narrowly based, male-dominated, white Anglocentric and skewed by
> factions
> and vested interests."
>
> This implies that a once inclusive poetry establishment (remember that?
> no, neither do I) has now been taken over by...well, by Robert Potts,
> apparently. Potts in the Guardian and as editor is thus accused of
> excluding women and minorities even as he attacks "dumbing down."
>
> Astley is thus shoring up his particular brand of (intolerant?)
> market-led
> eclecticism with the unproven and unargued charge that his antagonist
> is racist and sexist. He's conflating two distinct issues in the
> service of an argument for market-populism (dressed up as
> "democratization").
>
> Now does anyone really suppose that the market is going to alleviate
> sexism and
> racism?
>
> Best,
>
> Jeremy
>
|