As with Tim and Jeremy my impression of Astley's 'point' about women and minorities was that is consisted of a 'rhetorical trick'
(Jeremy's phrase) and a cheap one at that. It may be that the Guardian has or has developed a problem in that respect, I don't know,
I rarely read newspapers these days, but Astley's main concern seems to be about Potts.
It's difficult to say, on the matters of prejudice, I could claim, for example, that persons with psychological problems, bad
haircuts and teeth, raving mad but utterly sweet disabled girlfriends (about whom everybody says - she's beautiful, get away from
her, we care more about you) with birmingham accents and a propensity towards bad and good luck in equal amounts, who are not
comfortable with the neo-bourgeoise circuits of arts admin and grant getting, ARE discriminated against - bollocks to whether you
can write, run workshops off the top of your head, a great editor, etc etc, you ARE NOT ONE OF US.
It was interesting in Astely's list of the luckless un Guardian reviewed ethnic minorities whose culture is ignored that he chose
David Dabyadeen, Fred D'Aguiar and Eddie Markham, I've met all three, great guys all, but they are professional wordsmith academic
based poets who are as far from the slums as you can get - DD has a good line in blank verse, D'Aguiar redoes Yeats with a Guyanan
slant and is esteemed by the local government. Astley's rhetoric is pernicious, it mobilises stereotypes, at its heart is the notion
of the command centre, the literary elite who say what goes goes, and his beef with Potts seems to be that another crowd has
displaced his at what he sees as the heart of influence.
My own ultimate take on all these types is, to quote the vixen, Fuck'em. May they rot in the vestibule of hell formerly reserved for
anonymous reviewers from the TLS. May they be awarded retrospective 18th century prizes for writing bad imitations of James
Thompson. It's their Season.May they hang by their own fustian. May they be condemned to write poems like our former Home Secretary.
whose 'Echo' I had the of 'oft' hearing on the radio this morning (only once actually, but it felt like eternity, he 'communes' with
'nature'). May they decompose, odoriferously. May they be awarded grants to explore the meaning of bus routes. May they be turned
into Leavisites (now that's a curse!)

Best

Dave


David Bircumshaw

Spectare's Web, A Chide's Alphabet
& Painting Without Numbers

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Green" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: Neil Astley deserves a kiss on both cheeks


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