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
|