Jamie,

Thanks for quick response. I wanted to get in on this subject earlier  
but I was away and then my outgoing emails were not going out anywhere.

I would agree with you that Armitage's reputation was probably not  
made with poems such as Nightshift, but nevertheless it was in that  
highly praised first volume. I could never really understand how that  
type of writing was ever considered new and even radical, but it was  
considered as such at the time, which was always one of the biggest  
bugbears. When I began Terrible Work back in '92, and started to send  
my own material out, it was things such as Nightshift which were  
getting all the attention and as an editor I was pitched head first  
into those polemical battles against the domestic realists. What's  
that saying about 'don't let the buggers grind you down'? - well the  
buggers did grind me down, the same time as they were polishing clean  
their own domestic space etc, obviously. I can just imagine how  
Nightshift would have been talked about by my polemical enemies (Mark  
Robertson of Scratch etc) - he would have talked about how this was an  
important poem because the couple were being forced into this passing  
in the night situation by the pressures of making a living in  
Thatcherite Britain etc. But then, as now, most poets who wrote or  
published what I tended to like, just kept their distance. I never  
could keep my distance, and still can't. That's why I think it's good  
that you are on this list.

Cheers

Tim A.

On 22 Feb 2010, at 14:15, Jamie McKendrick wrote:

> 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.