Dear Bob,

I read Joe Sheerin's statement, as quoted by Rupert: "There is no such
thing as good writing and bad writing - there's writing," as very much
a practitioner's statement. I look at the statement: it surprises, it
appeals to my aesthetics, it's very plain, it has a pleasing dialectic
structure, it even employs repetition. It's a little bit Zen and it's
a little bit jazz. I'm a writer. For me, the statement is pragmatic,
useful.

I'm not an editor though I have plans to start a press representing
poets working outside their country of birth and/or national tradition
(hey guess what: just like me!). When I do, I don't know if "good" or
"bad" will be the relevant terms. I don't even know that they are
very relevant to me now. I don't know if Robert Creeley was a good
writer. I kid you not. Robert Creeley is very important to me in
many ways. The goodness or otherwise of his writing is not first
among them. "Bad" can be good. "Bad" can be real damn good. Good
can be pretty damn bad, but not in a good sense. The one
life-preserver is "writing." One of the many things I like about
Joe's statement is that it can be applied to process. The act and
process of writing: the verb of writing. I also like that's it's
categorical, but in the softest way; counter-intuitive, but inviting.

Bob, it's whatever works for you. I'm a teacher. You could say I
earn my living making judgements about writing. I assign grades. I
know how arbitrary they can be, and that they relate to attendance and
completion of work as much as to the quality of the work. I think
assigning grades is the least of what I do as a teacher, requiring the
least effort and bearing the least long-term significance. I was a
literary critic (a film critic and a theatre critic also) for years in
Ireland and New York. I was full of opinion & stupidity. What I like
to do is write poetry. My talent is not in criticism.

Alison said it, I think: aesthetics is a culturally-determined field.
Large numbers of people may agree a poem is good. Poems win contests
by being visibly good.
"Good" is what serves a particular community at a particular time.
"Good" and "bad" can also be what serves a particular individual at a
particular time: they both supply lots of energy. I got a new water
heater on Monday. It's guaranteed for 6 years. I paid for the
warranty to be extended to 10 years. There's a sticker on it that
documents all this. If it breaks, there's no argument about it. Poems
don't come with stickers like that. Unless Ezra Pound gets a job in
heaven (God is forgiving -- though Ezra mightn't be).

You say: "But, if one cannot distinguish between good writing and bad writing,
what *is* poetry?" I didn't say one can't distinguish between good
and bad writing. I can do that, according to my own education. At
the same time, I don't have a good answer to your question "What *is*
poetry?" I think about it, and it often comes up in class. I don't
have a good answer. I usually have some answer though, sometimes a
bad one. Today's might be: "Poetry is a very economical art form
which uses language to produce galaxies." For better or worse, at
this point in time, my position is quite close to what you fear:
"everything one chooses to call poetry is in fact poetry." I feel
the same about nationality. I have always thought anyone who wanted
to be Irish was Irish by me.

I'm sort of disgusted to see suggestions coming up on the list like
"members of this list … genuinely bothered by irony and humour … need
a much greater and deeper involvement in British and Irish poetry
until they manage to get the jokes" (Peter). Our discussion community
is not based in Sheffield or the West Midlands or any part of England;
it is comprised of the 231 members of this list, who come from many
cultures and live in many different locations throughout the world.

This thread started with an appeal from Geraldine to the list
regarding possibly starting a petition regarding Five Seasons Press'
Arts Council funding. If members introduce local or national issues
to the list, it seems pragmatic and courteous to engage in clear and
informative discussion and to be prepared to listen to various
questions as people learn. I found Tony Frazier's post exemplary in
this respect. It's chauvinist to imply that if a member doesn't live
in England, then he or she has nothing valuable to contribute. Peter
and Geraldine both object to Rupert's opinions: Rupert lives in
England but even his views cannot be accommodated:

"I wish Rupert a long and successful career in the Arts Council" (Peter)

"…whereas Mairead and Susan probably reacted to a situation that they
really need to dwell in to fully understand it Rupert's 'Can of worms'
directed at 'us' and not the 'Art's Council' was very eye-opening
because that's what the ACE depends on. They know no one will dare to
challenge any aspect of their 'race' policy no matter how incongruous
or unproductive hence a pure waste of money
because they also know that our very own poetry colleagues are more
than willing to condemn us." (Geraldine)

I think it's shameful to talk to, or about, Rupert in this way. West
Midlands Arts is the enemy. Arts Council England is the enemy. Hey
maybe Rupert is the enemy. I don't think so. Exclusivity as Peter
and Geraldine present it here
is, in my view, more debilitating.

Two final things: one: your new in-between half-way-house blog which
you were "a little hesitant" and "a little nervous" about announcing.
Hesitation and caution are useful values in the arts as in other
things. This second blog serves a different function to your other
blog. The work and the thoughts may be unfinished. Is it "bad" or
"good" or just "writing"? You're publishing it, remember.

You ask another hard question: "Specifically, I would like to know
what motivates one to write if it is not the improvement of the art?"
Writing has become a way of life for me. It is a daily practice and
adventure. Not just a process, because I like to make things and sell
them too. It is something I can do. It brings me joy and leads me
out into the world a little. I love literary tradition, and learning
about its dynamics. I think "joy" might be my most comprehensive
answer right now. But every few months brings change. There's
nothing wrong with "Improvement of the art" as a motivation, if it
works for you. It wouldn't necessarily get me out of bed in the
morning. I saw "Meet the Fockers" last night: if the Robert De Niro
character was a poet, I think "improvement of the art" might work for
him.

Mairead

On 8/25/05, Robert Heffernan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> But, if one cannot distinguish between good writing and bad writing,
> what *is* poetry? If there is not an art form which can be improved
> upon or developed is it not true that anything and everything one
> chooses to call poetry is in fact poetry. Who can argue that it's not
> if there is no standard?
>
> I'm not really trying to propagate my own viewpoint on this, or to
> create argument. I'm genuinely trying to learn. I'm new and confused
> and trying to learn.
>
> Specifically, I would like to know what motivates one to write if it
> is not the improvement of the art? (Assuming one has jettisoned any
> concept of 'improvement'.)
>
> bob
>
> On 8/25/05, Tilla Brading <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Why do I find reading through an issue of Poetry magazine painful and
> > > reading through the collected works of Creeley exciting?
> > Because it works for you and extends your understanding of what 'poetry' is
> > might be an answer.
> > Tilla's twopence
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25/8/05 2:36 pm, "Robert Heffernan" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > To those who feel there is no such thing as "good writing" or "bad
> > > writing" I have a (genuine) question to ask.
> > >
> > > What is the function of the poet if all writing is of equal merit?
> > > Why should I, or anyone else, bother to write? I've always thought
> > > that the role of the innovative poet is to improve the art. Am I
> > > wrong? What does it mean to "improve" if there is no way one can
> > > measure such improvement?
> > >
> > > Why do I find reading through an issue of Poetry magazine painful and
> > > reading through the collected works of Creeley exciting?
> > >
> > > Bob
> > > (A young poet who feels that the current climate of "no good, no bad,
> > > just writing" has made it difficult to know where to start in his
> > > art.)
> > >
> > > p.s. - Yet again I sent this to Mairead first before realising I
> > > should have sent it to the list. Sorry Mairead.
> > > On 8/25/05, mairead byrne <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >> I like what you say here Rupert, and what you relate of Joe Sheerin.
> > >> My understanding of poetry and writing has changed greatly over time.
> > >> I certainly appreciate: "there is no such thing as good writing and
> > >> bad writing - there's writing." Thanks for the imagination and soul
> > >> you bring to discussion.
> > >> Mairead
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 8/24/05, mallin1 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >>> I'm sorry Geraldine and others if my allotment analogy to poetry/poets
> > >>> offended or upset but--
> > >>>
> > >>> Greens have the slogan - dig where you stand (which I think is kin to
> > some
> > >>> poets). Truth is, 'dig where you stand' either elevates the digger or
> > buries
> > >>> the digger (in the grave dug). Poetry as individual on high is that
> > >>> problematic. You can't do that on an allotment: what you perceive as
> > your
> > >>> individuality is its dialectic opposite. The richer each element of the
> > >>> tapestry, the richer the whole.
> > >>>
> > >>> I know I sound crass but - an Irish teacher and poet, way back in the
> > early
> > >>> 1970s, was my mentor. We were at some folk club in an overspill town
> > and Joe
> > >>> Sheerin turned to me (me, headlong into Hart Crane and The Beats), and
> > said:
> > >>> "there is no such thing as good writing and bad writing - there's
> > writing."
> > >>>
> > >>> I kicked like a mule then - I've kicked like a mule these years hence -
> > for
> > >>> surely there is 'arbitration' - there's a cannon, there are university
> > >>> certificates, there are great poets arbitrating, there's a poetry God
> > to say
> > >>> what's 'good' and what's 'bad!'
> > >>>
> > >>> No. Joe was/is right: there is writing. Just writing.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to know how you arbitrate over 'good' and 'bad' writing?
> > >>>
> > >>> Until 1990 Shelley's 'Peterloo Writings' of 1820 were not published in
> > >>> Britain. Editors of his work would not publish 'Mask of Anarchy' or his
> > >>> polemic prose. The poetry/publishing world split Percey Byshe into two
> > >>> people: the intellectual of 'Queen Mab' and 'Prometheus Unbound' and
> > the
> > >>> "juvenile" who extended Thomas Paine's writings - who was thereby, in
> > my
> > >>> view, the bridge between Blake, Chartism and Marx.
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>>
> > >>> As said, what are your criteria?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Rupert
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>