> Good point, David;<
I dunno, Alison Croggon, I have this strange feeling that you don't mean
that.
Best
(hoi, I wasn't on about hothouse Romantic poets, I was fudging away at how
poets are seen in the generality of our culture. a lot of this debate, as
does much in poetical exchange, reminds me again of John Forbes'
'knife-fight in a phone-booth')
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: Poetry as Male Display
> On 7/5/06 2:42 PM, "David Bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> > One of the interesting aspects of this debate has been the amnesia about
the
> > marked way in which our culture often has seen poetry as an 'unmanly'
> > occupation: male poets are associated with 'nancy boys', 'stuff for
women',
> > with the exhibition of sensitivity and feeling, those 'feminine'
qualities,
> > rather than sports-field prowess, as well 'bookishness' which is not
again
> > a macho activity.
>
> Good point, David; the Romantic poet personified both masculine
(Intellect)
> and feminine (Soul) brought together behind that famous brooding brow;
which
> always "conceieved", "gestated" and "gave birth" to Genius. Etc. This by
way
> of marginalising actual women, btw, who were doomed to hairy unsexieness a
> la George Eliot, eternal spinsterhood (any number of poets) or facing
having
> their mortal frames shrivelling under the flame of Genius a la Elizabeth
> Barrett ...
>
> All best
>
> A
>
>
> Alison Croggon
>
> Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
> Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|