This is an important piece, whatever our particular take on Bunting
might be. I agree with Mark that Peter Riley's response to the Hall
programme and the problems arising from it was a pretty fair one. The
myth making around that scene has been an irritant to many of us and
in my opinion it has actually helped damage the reputation of
MacSweeney, instead of promoting it. I have never shared the Brit
avant garde's enthusiasm for and elevation of Bunting - his work does
very little for me, and that famous 'recording' even less - the
problem is that I really like the work of most of those who say they
are influenced by him, with the exception of Pickard, who failed on so
many levels to live up to his early promise. I have to say that I
really object to Keith Armstrong's treating of MacSweeney and Pickard
in parallel, there is just no comparison, quality wise, between the
two. Barry's work had its faults but they become pretty meaningless
when judged against his brilliance.
There is a circumstantial reason for Bunting being pounced on as an
icon by some sections of the Brit avant garde: he could directly link
regional English oppositional poetry to the heritage of high
modernism. I think there was a certain desperation in that, but
nevertheless his notion of the music of poetry, which went against the
grain of the way Brit mainstream poetry was heading ever since WW2,
found a genuine constituency, and that is where I think any discussion
of his poetry and how it differs becomes important.
Tim A.
On 20 Dec 2009, at 18:13, David Lace wrote:
> "NORTH EAST POETRY: DEBUNKING SOME MYTHS" by Keith Armstrong
> (Discussion of Bunting and other North East poets as overrated)
>
> http://www.pennilesspress.co.uk/annexe/north_east_poetry.htm
|