Peter,

I very much agree that the establishment feeds off the mainstream  
rather than is it, as you say. This still seems to back me up, but no  
matter. And nobody ever said that the mainstream is something static,  
certainly not me, though I have said that its most visible and  
noticeable modern successes (Armitage, Duffy etc) portray a rather  
remarkable consistency as regards certain practices, methods and  
notions, most of which run counter to the kind of poetry that I like  
to read and write. There are other sides to the mainstream too of  
course, some more ambitious (O'Brian, Paterson), but these poets also  
tend to be the most openly negative about other types of ambitious  
poetry. Both O'Brian and Patterson have at times also been  
constructively critical of certain of the more cliched poetics of  
their colleagues, but O'Brian (probably one of the worst poets ever)  
is hidebound by his prejudices and aggression (perhaps because he  
knows deep down just how bad his stuff really is) while Paterson has  
always seemed to me to be rather intellectually confused.

So sorry Peter, I don't 'believe' in a dichotomy but I do experience  
one.

There, said too much.

If anyone out there thinks I should not say things such as "probably  
one of the worst poets ever" with the name of the individual attached  
then I would counter by saying these are big names who have received  
masses of critical acclaim, so they should be able to take it. I'm  
pretty sure anyway that Mr. O'Brian doesn't give two hoots about any  
opinions on this list by nobodies such as myself.

All the best
Tim A

On 13 Oct 2009, at 11:35, Peter Riley wrote:

> Tim, That's why I put "mainstream" in quotes. I.e. TLS is not what  
> many-of-you would mean when you use the term "mainstream". You would  
> mostly mean certain poets and editors who are in fact incapable of  
> James Campbell's professional nastiness (though some of them, among  
> the most successful,  are not). The Establishment feeds off the  
> mainstream rather than is it.
>
> Otherwise, well if you want to believe in this dichotomy, carry on.  
> Some people are I dare say temperamentally bound to it.  But I don't  
> know how you read certain poets within it, especially some younger  
> poets (or myself possibly at times not at others) who seem to be  
> writing outside that entire structure, a move which I'm glad of.
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2009, at 10:20, Tim Allen wrote:
>
> A good post Peter and a good point about certain individuals, but...
> how can you make the below comment if you do not know what you mean  
> by 'mainstream'? I'm not going to argue with you over this topic  
> ever again, but your demarkation between mainstream and what you  
> call the literary establishment does seem to back me up a little.  
> I've talked before about the particular nature of the current Brit  
> mainstream and how it differs from the older and vaguely entrenched  
> establishment. Ummm, vaguely entrenched, I like that.
>
> All best
>
> Tim A.
>
> On 13 Oct 2009, at 09:48, Peter Riley wrote:
>
>> TLS is not "mainstream", it is the literary establishment, a very  
>> different thing.