An ideological difference. Well, is it? And if it isn't ideological  
what the hell is it? Yes, it's not one of Armitage's best poems, but  
it is a good example of what an awful lot of Brit poetry people go  
for, and went for in a big way back in the 90's. This is why  the  
difference of opinion here between Jamie and the rest is important. It  
is important because it is such a big difference over what appears to  
be such a little thing. Literary reputations were made by people  
writing this stuff and being praised for it by broadsheet critics, fact.

Why doesn't the poem work for me and so many who share my tastes? I  
understand all of Jamie's reasons for liking and rating (even if this  
is qualified) the poem but not one of those reasons can shift my  
negative response. The tone of the poem and the set of emotional  
markers it sets up in the third and forth lines turns me off  
completely (the first couplet is a fine miniature and I know that I  
and a lot of poets I know would have been as pleased as punch at that  
and left it there). But it goes on, doing what? Undoing everything it  
achieved in that opening. Why? Nothing in the poem makes me care about  
this couple and their problem. It just doesn't happen. The poem is  
claustrophobic and prissy. The more he piles on the details the less  
the poem works, the less we (alright - I) are convinced.

I know a lot of you don't think this matters (hi Sean), that it is  
something we just need to move on from. But it keeps coming back, time  
and time again, because the differences that lurk behind this problem  
are, as far as poetry is concerned, fundamental.

Tim A.

On 20 Feb 2010, at 11:54, Jeffrey Side wrote:

> Jamie, I fear we will never come to an agreement on this. It is an
> ideological difference that separates us, I suppose.