OK Mairead. I did say 'should be', not 'is'. I suppose it is an ideal
that I try to put into practice, and I think I largely succeed. In
some ways what I said is so obvious to me that it is difficult seeing
what the problem is (unless somebody takes Rupert's line, as I pointed
out).

However, looking at what I said again I can appreciate the problem,
especially as you were quite right to pick up on the phrase 'what it
is', as though poetry had a separate existence to how it is read,
which of course I don't think it has. Coincidentally at the Language
Club discussion group a few days ago, on the subject of 'voice', I
found myself reiterating my notion that the poem has no existence
between its being written and its being read - this was to counter
vague ideas about the poem having an isness independent of externals.
For me a poem is both everything that came before it and everything
that comes after it, and of course the relationship between that
'before' and 'after' is both actual and unpredictable. So I have to
think about what I really meant by saying 'the poem as it is'.

There are a few things which need to be pointed out here:
1. poetry is not a single thing - there are many types of poetry which
have different agendas, different aims, different 'poetics' etc. The
reception (the reading) of some of these poetries will depend a lot
more on such things as the background of the author than others, and
such poetry almost has this requirement written into it. Even so, as a
reader, I try to bypass this methodical trick which wants to lay down
the tracks for an expected response and try instead to engage with the
poem as something fresh and original, searching for what moves around
within the language of the poem and hence moves something in me,
something under over and above the literal 'message'.

2. (Obviously related to the above) Poetry has sound and texture and
image and tone and form. These things work in dynamic with
'subject' (I've said before that I don't think they can be treated as
separate things) to the extent that 'subject' relies upon them for
everything - therefore a poem might be in agreement with what I think
of a 'subject' but fail completely to say anything to me that matters.
I agree that such a straightforward connect between message and
response is what some people want from poetry and it is what propels
and gives energy to some scenes, but it is not the poetry I am
interested in, however strong my own political opinions or emotional
drive.

So, when I said 'the poem as it is' what I meant was the poem as
engaged with multi-dimensionally, as language, as dynamic, as
encounter etc. and this will be an exercise that both neutralizes the
source of the poem while soaking up the rich results (or not) of that
source as revealed in the poem. Does that make sense? Therefore I
don't give a tinker's curse about the 'background' or physical/psychic
reality of the author when I am engaging with a poem. Of course such
considerations and 'interests' inevitably come into play in the follow-
up, but these will be rerouted through the experience of reading the
poem, not the other way round.

As for the practical side of these issues, I have never, as far as the
creative arts are concerned, believed in overt positive
discrimination. Subtle positive discrimination based on an individual
editor or publisher's inclination is something else, because that, if
it occurs, is natural and human.

Cheers to all weather man woman or beast

Tim A.


 >"Sorry Tim, it looked pretty much like that's what you were saying:
"Poetry, like anything else, should be judged/read/taken in/criticized/
enjoyed/praised for what it is, not because of the gender, colour,
class, profession, nationality, politics, character etc of the person
who wrote it." It's so hard to communicate with others!

Gender, colour, class, profession, nationality , politics, character,
etc are closely tied to subject in poetry, and poetry being poetry is
closely tied to form. What do you mean when you say "Poetry, like
anything else, should be judged/read/taken in/criticized/enjoyed/
praised for what it is"? I'm particularly interested in a definition
of "what it is." Also, examples of all the other things which are
"judged/read/taken in/criticized/enjoyed/praised" for what they "are,"
rather than any other consideration. Music? Isn't gender, race,
class, etc a major contributor, marker, and zone of interest in all
the arts?

Anyway, it would be interesting to hear your articulation of what
poetry "is," apart from the human attributes of the poet. I also
believe in poetry as an entity so maybe we could compare notes
generally on the list to see how the Muse functions in a contemporary
context.

Mairead"<