Jamie,

I’m sending this to you as well as to the list because my last two 
responses to Sean Bonney have not appeared there, perhaps due to a 
technical fault. So I want to make sure you get this.

Yes, I am a bit cynical about the electoral transparency of the elections 
for the Oxford poetry professorship. Partly because Stevenson seemed 
to let something slip when she said it was an honour “that a poet was 
asked to accept”. This sounds as if she had been privy at some point in 
the past to the behind-the-scenes machinations that might go on. She 
must be in a position to know what she meant. 

Regarding the Perloff situation with James, I don’t know enough about 
the ins and outs to comment. I’m sure she would agree that they are 
merely her opinions. 

Jeff






On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:51:58 -0000, Jamie McKendrick 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Jeff,
>I also enjoyed the interview.
>  Among other things, I liked most of her discussion of reviewing (for 
>instance, her rejection of the idea that reviewers should have some 
kind of 
>vetted, academic training) - but it looked to me at its weakest 
speaking 
>about some reviews she hadn't agreed with, especially the Clive 
James review 
>of Canetti: I was surprised she should call him "the the notoriously 
snide, 
>clever British (originally Australian) Clive James" - has he stopped 
being 
>Australian? - and should assume his negative review was because 
Canetti had 
>been rude about some British people and not because he didn't like 
the book. 
>Has his residence in Britain made him such a flag-waver? His review 
can be 
>read at http://www.clivejames.com/articles/clive/elias-canetti
>  It certainly displays a loathing of Canetti, but it seems most of all 
>annoyed about Canetti's spite towards the American T.S. Eliot (as well 
as 
>his vicious and ungallant portrayal of Iris Murdoch for whom James 
himself 
>displays no great reverence). He gives ample quotation to show why 
he finds 
>Canetti so obnoxious and self-obsessed. Like it or not, none of it 
seems at 
>all to do with James's identification with Britishness. The only thing I 
>really took exception to was his dismissal of Canetti's extraordinary 
novel 
>'Die Blendung' (here known as Auto da Fé) which from the review one 
would 
>guess James hasn't read.
>Also Perloff makes it sound as if it was a British editorial conspiracy 
>('THE REVENGE OF THE BRITS') published in the 'Times'. Whereas it's 
The New 
>York Times that published it. Not much of a British conspiracy - an 
>Australian writing in a US paper.
>
>  On the topic of conspiracies, you write of the Oxford Poetry 
>Professorship:
>"... the whole thing is probably rigged, anyway. It would be a welcome 
>surprise if
>the “elections” did count for something, though. But that is too much 
to
>expect, I suppose."
>
>   Do you mean that the vote is being miscounted or that the whole 
thing is 
>rigged in some other way?
>It's the very least we can expect of any election, surely, that the vote 
>should "count for something".
>.
>Jamie
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 12:26 PM
>Subject: Re: The Perl on Poetry
>
>
>Judy,
>
>I’m glad you liked the interview. Marjorie always tries to make them
>interesting—something of an achievement for most academics working
>in poetry, I think.
>
>In response to your points:
>
>‘I wonder if Marjorie Perloff (born in Vienna, emigrating to the USA at
>age 6 1/2) may've been reflecting a USAmerican bias against what
>seem to be "rogue" writers when she objected to Clive James's review.
>(I've read neither his nor her review, so have no opinion on them.)’
>
>I honestly couldn’t tell you. I haven’t read her or James’s review. I
>assume she was just reacting as a human to what she’d read. She
>tends to speak her mind, which, again, is rare for some academics.
>
>‘A somewhat related (to UK-USA attitudes) issue:  In the Grauniad, I
>read the commenters on today's article about Oxford U's new schedule
>for the nomination for the post of Professor of Poetry.  At first I
>despaired of any braincell in the commenters, but then realised that, 
as
>so often with those unruly folk, they had homed into a criticism of a
>major contender, Anne Stevenson. Seems that Stevenson made what
>sounded like a mistake about the OU POP election:  "I have always
>(probably naively) assumed that the professorship of poetry at Oxford
>was an honour that a poet was asked to accept."  Oh, oops---  there's 
a
>vote, an actual election, Anne!’
>
>I think she was probably telling the truth, in that the whole thing is
>probably rigged, anyway. It would be a welcome surprise if
>the “elections” did count for something, though. But that is too much 
to
>expect, I suppose.
>
>Best,
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
>On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:02:32 -0500, Judy Prince
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Jeffrey (and of course interested others),
>>
>>I've been enjoying your googleable interview with Marjorie Perloff for
>>Poetry Salzburg Review:
>>http://marjorieperloff.com/interviews/salzburg-interview/
>>
>>Her analyses, opinions, conclusions, and pointings-out, never
>disappoint.
>>
>>And you were a fine set-upper for her. Â For example, I rather liked
>>her building a positive-spin, negative answer to your: Â "Do you think
>>the foregrounding of form may be one of the reasons why much
>>experimental poetry is perceived as dull?"
>>
>>Further, you chase her comfortably out into another open (mine)field,
>>asking which are better poetry-reviewers, poets or academics? Â Her
>>answer: Â ". . . (S)ome poets are much better reviewers than
>comparable
>>academic critics. ...... "But on the whole, poets-as-reviewers are too
>>biased; they have their agenda."..... "Ideally, the, editors would
>>choose reviewers (whether poets or academics) who are 
disinterested,
>>who have nothing to gain from praising or blaming X or Y. Â Poetry
>>reviews, though, are mostly just puffs. Â . . . One would think each
>>poet reviewed were a genius!"
>>
>>She says that Clive James' NYTBR review of Elias Canetti's The Part 
In
>>The Blitz (which she'd reviewed for Bookforum and 
found "fascinating")
>>was "almost libelous", describing James as "the notoriously snide,
>>clever British (originally Australian) Clive James."
>>
>>Now to musings I'd enjoy your reactions to. Â I'm a USAmerican only
>>recently spending half-years in England, and one of many happy
>>surprises is finding that UKers seem far less conformist than
>>USAmericans, as well as far less "polite". Â Journalists in particular
>>seem to be loose cannons on deck in even the most staid print 
media.
>>I love it!
>>
>>I wonder if Marjorie Perloff (born in Vienna, emigrating to the USA at
>>age 6 1/2) may've been reflecting a USAmerican bias against what
>seem
>>to be "rogue" writers when she objected to Clive James's review.
>>(I've read neither his nor her review, so have no opinion on them.)
>>
>>A somewhat related (to UK-USA attitudes) issue:  In the Grauniad, I
>>read the commenters on today's article about Oxford U's new 
schedule
>>for the nomination for the post of Professor of Poetry. Â At first I
>>despaired of any braincell in the commenters, but then realised that,
>>as so often with those unruly folk, they had homed into a criticism of
>>a major contender, Anne Stevenson.
>>
>>Seems that Stevenson made what sounded like a mistake about the
>OU POP
>>election: Â "I have always (probably naively) assumed that the
>>professorship of poetry at Oxford was an honour that a poet was 
asked
>>to accept."  Oh, oops---  there's a vote, an actual election, Anne!
>>
>>Now the Groan's bumptious commenters are off and howling---whilst
>>Proper Feminists carve the wood for her poetry chair. Â Like it or not,
>>as with the last election, the USA and Canada will strongly influence
>>outcomes.
>>
>>My own vote, of course, would be for Stephen Moss, Guardian's own.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Judy
>>
>>--
>>Frisky Moll Press: Â http://judithprince.com/home.html
>>
>>"I can't read my library card." Â ---Jeff Hecker, Norfolk, VA