Yes, Peter. What you say chimes with my reservations, also—especially 
regarding the possibility of unintentional canon formation. It is certainly 
the case, as you say, that the same poets chosen as being significant 
always appear. I expect Robert’s journal will be no different. No journal 
can be without an agenda, despite diplomatic denials.





On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:23:14 +0100, Peter Riley 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Rupert -- I wasn't championing the cause of academic study of
>"innovative poetry" I was merely saying what I believe to be the
>purpose of the new magazine.
>
>Of course there are problems with such a "discipline", the biggest one
>being how to identify the subject -- innovative poetry. One obvious
>way would be to locate some contrasting poetry which isn't innovative
>but that can be extremely difficult because some poetry is innovative
>in one way and some in another and actually, most poetry definitely
>has something "new" about it. In fact I don't think they do this . (I
>might be wrong here but I don't think that hostile analysis of non-
>innovative poetry is normally part of the run of things). What you do
>is select a quite small number of young-ish poets and say "These are
>the innovative poets, these are what we study, the rest can go hang."
>And having dipped my nose into these areas from time to time it I get
>the impression that in all the I.P. pockets all over the country they
>are selecting more-or-less the same few poets, except in a certain
>south-easterly direction where they select a different and smaller
>group. And other regional variants.  I think that the principal
>qualifying factor is a hostility to the entire culture we inhabit
>manifested through a belief that "language" is at the heart of the
>problem, by adherence to the conclusions of linguistic philosophy,
>stated or implied. So the innovative is defined not so much against
>conservative poetry as against a general cultural sense of stagnation
>and normative language use.
>
>I think it is also undeniably true that some of the poets selected at
>University A are probably teaching at University B, which is an
>inevitable result of the demand for a shared cultural agenda which
>will produce the right kind of innovative poetry.
>
>I don't think there's anything wrong with this (kind of) study as
>such. What I find worrying about it is the creation of a selective
>history in exactly the way that English departments have always done
>-- "This is what we study because this is what is important." People
>like Leavis and Davie can be seen in the same way constructing a
>history, or a tradition of contemporary poetry of which they are the
>guardians (and which now look like fairly ramshackle affairs with
>moments of brilliant perception). Treatment of pre-C20 lit. has been
>just the same. You end up with a "canon" as they call it.  The
>possibility of a shifted climate in which we escape from canons
>doesn't really seem to enter into it, and yet that seems to be what is
>happening in changing patterns of publication and consumption of new
>poetry at present.
>
>So, again, a valuable move towards the future is attenuated by the
>amount of freight it is willing to carry with it  (and quite possibly
>encumbered with the amount of extra-poetical baggage it loads itself
>with).  Well, it could be so, in certain hands.
>
>PR
>
>
>
>On 19 Oct 2009, at 23:19, rupert mallin wrote:
>
>Sorry Peter, but how do you teach innovative poetry as opposed to
>teaching poetry? Also, is 'Innovative Poetry' now an "established and
>respectable academic speciality" in this country? Mmm, tell that to
>the University of East Anglia -- but also tell it to me!
>
>I don't understand how "respectable" and "innovative" can live in the
>same sentence. That is, I'm wondering which comes first here - the
>respectabllity or the innovation? I'm all for universities but they
>are NOT centres for poetic or artistic innovation. Surely, innovations
>in art and poetry have come about historically when students and
>academic staff have fused with the society beyond. These days, while
>government directives and the universities themselves claim a
>plurality of purpose and record student numbers, ironically, what I
>see are teaching practices narrowing sharply.
>
>So I applaud Liz for actually questioning the ground here - because it
>is not fixed, nor is the pole of the academic as steady as it appears
>here.
>
>Rupert
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter Riley
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry launch at
>Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009)
>
>I think what it's about is an insistence that the teaching and study
>of "Innovative Poetry" is now an established and respectable academic
>speciality in this country.
>
>PRi
>
>
>On 19 Oct 2009, at 16:03, Liz Kirby wrote:
>
>Anyone who isn't already on a payroll somewhere invited? Or is this
>really just the Journal of British And Irish Innovative Academics
>(Poetry).....
>
>I suppose people who dont have the sanction of an academic 
institution
>and a steady income cant really be innovative?
>
>Just wondering.
>
>Liz
>
>2009/10/19 Anthony Levings <[log in to unmask]>
>A quick reminder that this Wednesday (21st October 2009) is the 
Birkbeck
>launch for the Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry. Staring
>at
>7:30 pm. Room B29, Birkbeck Main Building, Malet St., London WC1E 
7HX
>http://www.bbk.ac.uk/readings/news/journallaunch
>
>Speakers:
>
>Caroline Bergvall, Poet and performer, Arts and Humanities Research
>Council
>Fellow in the Creative and Performing Arts at the University of
>Southampton
>
>Andrea Brady, Poet, Lecturer, Department of English, Queen Mary 
College
>
>Robert Hampson, Poet, Professor, Department of English, Royal 
Holloway
>
>Scott Thurston and Robert Sheppard, Editors, Journal of Innovative
>British
>and Irish Poetry
>
>Followed by discussion and drinks.
>
>All Welcome.
>
>
>Anthony Levings, Managing Editor
>Gylphi Limited, http://www.gylphi.co.uk
>
>
>* Apologies for cross-posting *
>
>
>
>
>