Tim,
When I read Jeff's phrase about "ideological difference" I was inclined
for a moment to write back agreeing: if the word "ideological" could be
stretched to include temperamental, aesthetical, ethical and a host of other
differences, but decided that was too pompous and let it rest. Even though
Jeff was maybe referring to the issue of free-associative reading, this
difference does relate to the earlier discussion as well.
I reckon I've said enough about 'Nightshift' itself, but - if we're
talking of taste - I might add that a great many poems written in the 90s -
and just as many now - that could broadly be thought to resemble this one
don't much appeal to me, so I'm not deaf to the issues you raise. From what
you've said I take it that it's the way a poem like this keeps itself within
the confines of its own premise that seems uninteresting. What you call
"emotional markers" (though I can't really see them at all in lines 3 and 4)
links your post with an earlier one by David which spoke of "assumptions" in
relation to Englishness - something that interested me and I had wanted to
reply to, but didn't feel I had enough to go on, or much to contribute.
A poem which sketches out a relationship, concentrates on a moment on
which a larger narrative is perceived to depend, to put it very roughly, is
something we can meet not just in the 90s, but way back. Browning, Robin
mentioned. Hardy a fortiori. Even Eliot's 'Portrait of a Lady' or 'The Love
Song of J.Alfred Prufrock' have these narrative elements, however
brilliantly they're subverted. Jeff would have at least the first two junked
for committing an offence against the no-narrative rule. I'm assuming you're
not sharing that position. So then it becomes a question of how the details
are assembled, of what else the poem offers, of how much we find ourselves
engaged in the situation described. Perhaps it becomes a question of a lot
more than that.
"Literary reputations" are forged all the time, I'm inclined to agree, by
many kinds of spurious currents. I suspect Armitage's reputation was not
made on this poem, even this kind of poem, though in his case, envy apart,
I'm delighted to see he's widely appreciated. I read through the Jacket
article about "empirical markers" and found it an inadequate way of talking
about poems, didn't think the idea of paraphraseability was an effective way
of dismissing this or any other poem, didn't like the way Jeff advertised it
here with the "awfulness" of A's poetry, and so wrote briefly showing my
dissent. I don't mind having to explain that, but it means a fair amount of
effort. And in the climate here, it seemed to me that more effort was
required of me to defend the poem than of anyone who wanted to dismiss it.
But you've considered the account I gave of the way I see the poem working
and remain, as others are, unconvinced. That really is fine by me.
A more general argument which highlights a division between different
kinds of writing and what is to be valued or not in them may be worth
having, and you may want to expand the argument. My own feeling is that the
monolithic oppositions between "mainstream" and "avant-garde" poetics will
prove inadequate and cumbersome, not least because a considerable number of
poets which I think (perhaps mistakenly) Jeff and you would still consider
"mainstream" are writing within a completely different aesthetic than the
one that this poem might loosely represent.
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
> 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.
>
|