The reason for the Phds etc. is to claim legitimacy. Robert Sheppard has
always been concerned that this sort of poetry has never been taken
seriously within academia until fairly recently, hence the emphasis of
credentials. As I said before, it's mainly about insecurity.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:55:04 -0400, mairead byrne
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I'm really happy about this new journal and looking forward to
previewing
>some of it at http://www.gylphi.co.uk/poetry/index.php
>I got to say though: all the *doctors* and *professors* on the editorial
>team look a bit parodic. I'm all for the PhD, and the academy, and
very
>proud of my associations with both, but there's something about
poetry, for
>me, that makes me want to slip off my gown (my academic gown brat
though if
>I had any other ...). There's obviously a conscious foregrounding of
>academic credentials here, I wonder does anyone on the team feel a
tension?
>Three cheers for Elizabeth James (though to be fair she packs two
extra
>names in with her place of work).
>Mairéad
>Editorial Team Editors Professor Robert Sheppard (Edge Hill University)
>Dr Scott Thurston (University of Salford)
>
>Editorial Board Professor Peter Barry (University of Wales at
Aberystwyth)
>Dr Caroline Bergvall (University of Southampton)
>Professor Charles Bernstein (University of Pennsylvania)
>Dr Andrea Brady (Queen Mary College, University of London)
>Dr Ian Davidson (University of Wales at Bangor)
>Professor Alex Davis (University College Cork)
>Professor Allen Fisher (Manchester Metropolitan University)
>Dr John Hall (University College Falmouth, incorporating Dartington
College
>of Arts)
>Professor Robert Hampson (Royal Bedford and Holloway College,
University of
>London)
>Professor Romana Huk (University of Notre Dame)
>Elizabeth James (Victoria and Albert Museum)
>Professor Tony Lopez (University of Plymouth)
>Dr Anthony Mellors (Birmingham City University)
>Professor Peter Middleton (University of Southampton)
>Dr Ian Patterson (Queens' College, University of Cambridge)
>Professor Emerita Marjorie Perloff (Stanford University)
>Professor William Rowe (Birkbeck College, University of London)
>Professor Keith Tuma (Miami University, Ohio)
>Professor Tim Woods (University of Wales at Aberystwyth)
>
>
>
>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
>> Thanks for clearing that up, Robert.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:36:22 +0100, Robert Hampson
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >No - the editorial material for conrtibutors begins by inviting
>> >'critical articles on the history, context, close reading and poetics
>> >of what has been termed "innovative poetry"' - which would seem
to
>> fit
>> >the title. Colin was quoting from the 'Aims and Scope', which
broadens
>> >this to include (a) 'critical writing that derives from practice-based
>> >research' and (b) 'poetics'.
>> >
>> >The Editorial glances at the problems of the term 'innovative' ...
>> >
>> >And there are articles on O'Sullivan, Prynne, Forrest-Thomson and
>> >Denise Riley.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Robert
>> >
>> >
>> >Jeffrey Side wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>I hope you are right Colin. Time will tell.
>> >>
>> >>Their saying that they will look at 'critical writing that derives
from
>> >>practice-led research and poetics' seems to suggest a limitation
in
>> >>itself, and not as openly inviting as you think. Does that mean
that
>> >>critical writing that is non-academic and which is not driven by
>> >practice-
>> >>led research won't get a hearing?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:49:34 +0100, colin herd
>> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I think a lot of these concerns are addressed in the editorial to
the
>> >>first
>> >>>issue and come down essentially to whether there should be
>> academic
>> >>study of
>> >>>poetry at all. Jeffrey you appear to be suggesting 'no', but I
hope
>> >'yes'.
>> >>>(when you say 'no journal' can exist without an agenda, I take
>> your 'no
>> >>>journal' to be the desireable alternative). I find Thurston and
>> >>Sheppard's
>> >>>hopeful assertion 'Academic study of poetry need not
>> furnish 'academic'
>> >>>poetry' pretty convincing, and i am willing to give the journal a
>> shot
>> >on
>> >>>those terms. If there should be academic study of poetry, then
why
>> not
>> >>>'innovative' poetry?
>> >>>
>> >>>Of course the term 'innovative' is inadequate, needs to be
>> questioned,
>> >>>challenged etc. But if there is to be a journal of the kinds of
poetry
>> >>that
>> >>>might be critically examined under that name, then I can't
think of
>> a
>> >>more
>> >>>welcoming/inviting one... It opens itself up to current/future
>> >>innovations
>> >>>that a specific reference to a recent poetic tendency might not.
I
>> >>>understand that it may turn out that this journal becomes
>> associated
>> >>with a
>> >>>closed policy, an unwelcoming one, but from the first issue I
don't
>> see
>> >>any
>> >>>particular reason to assume there won't be room for
>> >>various/new/different
>> >>>interpretations of who innovative poets are.
>> >>>
>> >>>Liz's initial problem about non-academically-affiliated writers
being
>> >>>somehow not-'invited' is a bit ungenerous i think, given that the
>> >>editors
>> >>>state that they are proposing to carry ' critical writing that
derives
>> >from
>> >>>practice-led research and poetics' alongside academic criticism.
>> >>>
>> >>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Jeffrey Side
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Gareth, it’s not about reading or not reading it. The point
is
>> the
>> >>>> ramifications the journal will have in the further
academisation
>> of
>> >>poetic
>> >>>> writing practice, and its influence in deciding who can
legitimately
>> >>>> practice this writing and who can’t.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:39:35 +0100, Gareth Farmer
>> >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >Dear All
>> >>>> >The answer seems simple: don't read the journal if you take
>> >>exception
>> >>>> to it.
>> >>>> >I'm not particularly fond of *Horse and Hound *but I don't
>> waste
>> >>my
>> >>>> time
>> >>>> >censuring it.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Best,
>> >>>> >Gareth
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >2009/10/20 Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> You may be right, Tim. It seems that many younger poets
>> now
>> >>see
>> >>>> such
>> >>>> >> courses as an essential requirement. This no doubt will
>> produce
>> >>>> more
>> >>>> >> identikit “innovators†with very little independent
>> thought and an
>> >>>> >> increasingly procedural-based approach to poetic
composition.
>> >>>> Although,
>> >>>> >> I dislike the mainstream, I do admire their amateurism.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:22:32 +0100, Tim Allen
>> >>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> >I don't really agree with the bit below Jeffrey, although I
>> wish I
>> >>>> >> >did. Younger poets seem to be more and more
accepting of
>> the
>> >>>> way
>> >>>> >> the
>> >>>> >> >system works. It is not just a matter of them buying
into
>> the
>> >>>> system,
>> >>>> >> >by imagining that you have to go to college and do this
>> course
>> >>and
>> >>>> >> >that course before you can be accepted as a poet, it is
>> more a
>> >>>> case of
>> >>>> >> >them not knowing anything different and never
experiencing
>> >>>> anything
>> >>>> >> >different. They have been brought up in/with this
>> >>>> mechanical/career
>> >>>> >> >orientated view of education so the hoops expected of
them
>> >>>> regarding
>> >>>> >> >creative arts are no different to any other part of the
>> package.
>> >>It is
>> >>>> >> >all a con of course, as 'careers' are as hard to find as
ever,
>> but
>> >>>> >> >that tends to actually reinforce the imperative to work
>> through
>> >>the
>> >>>> >> >system, as a kind of hopeful insurance or safety net.
Yes,
>> there
>> >>>> will
>> >>>> >> >always be independent spirits, but not enough of them
to
>> make
>> >>>> any
>> >>>> >> >difference to the trend in my view - I certainly don't
think
>> too
>> >>many
>> >>>> >> >of them will have a 'romanticised' idea of avant-garde
>> poetry.
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >I know that in these discussions there is always the
>> problem of
>> >>>> >> >examples - so here is one - what about Luke Kennard?
I am
>> >>about
>> >>>> 90%
>> >>>> >> >sure that if Luke had not been part of that course he
did in
>> >>Exeter
>> >>>> he
>> >>>> >> >would still be an unknown - not because I think the
course
>> >>made
>> >>>> him a
>> >>>> >> >good poet (I have no way of knowing such a thing) but
>> because
>> >>>> >> without
>> >>>> >> >that base and influence his work would have come
across
>> to
>> >>the
>> >>>> usual
>> >>>> >> >mag editors as just another young man mucking about
with
>> >>>> language
>> >>>> >> with
>> >>>> >> >a bit of an attitude.
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >I have said before that it is academia which has, to a
>> degree,
>> >>been
>> >>>> >> >the saviour of brit innovative poetry - in my interview of
>> Robert
>> >>>> >> >Sheppard in 'Don't Start Me Talking' I think I said it was
>> like
>> >>being
>> >>>> >> >given the kiss of life by your worst enemy.
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >Cheers
>> >>>> >> >Tim A.
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >On 19 Oct 2009, at 19:57, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >> it will cause a
>> >>>> >> >> backlash against it, with younger poets who have a
more
>> >>>> >> romanticised
>> >>>> >> >> idea of what avant-garde poetry is, and how it is
written
>> and
>> >>>> >> >> disseminated,
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
|
