I’m bringing Holland's remark up because given that she’s the editor of
Horizon (one of Salt's spin-offs) she is in a position of some
responsibility in that her tastes (if prejudiced) could affect the stylistic
balance of the poetry appearing there. She claims on the Home page of
the site:
‘I’m not interested in becoming too prescriptive about the sort of
poetry, fiction, critical prose or literary oddities I’d like to receive from
contributors. I’m not positioning myself either left, right or dead centre
of the mainstream. What I will be seeking, however, in the work
received, is an openness: to the physical, to the wider world, to ideas
and language, and to the possibility of failure.’
Yet, the comment from her I’ve posted here is:
‘As an editor, I am open to most things, including this ... type of work.
As an editor, I have to be open to it, otherwise I wouldn't be doing my
job properly. But as a poet myself, and as a reader/listener, I have no
problems in saying that I dislike it intensely.’
(http://www.saltpublishing.com/horizon/index.htm)
Even though she acknowledges that a conflict of interest exists,
nevertheless, how can we really be sure that her prejudices don’t come
into play in the majority of instances? The only way to ensure balance
would be for Horizon to have two editors of poetry one such as Holland
and one who doesn’t “intensely” dislike non-mainstream poetry.
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:59:34 +0100, Peter Riley
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>If you're going to make this kind of fuss every time somebody makes a
>public statement attacking, or showing disinterest in, avant-garde,
>innovative, whatever, poetry--- you're going to be awfully busy for
>the rest of your life.
>
>Of course they do. The poetry elicits it, the poetry demands it, the
>poetry almost needs it. If it didn't happen the poetry wouldn't have
>registered as what it is.
>
>PR
|