On 31 Aug 2010, at 10:21, Hampson, R wrote:
> 'Non-theorised' poetry, in my experience, often has a theory: it
> doesn't articulate it because it assumes that it is 'natural'.
Yes exactly, or it pretends that it is, or convinces itself, or
behaves as if etc.
In mine and Andrew Duncan's 'Don't Start Me Talking' this issue crops
up in my interview of Robert Sheppard where we disagreed about the
extent and depth of this problem. Robert was saying that things had
changed and that the mainstream had now 'come out' with its theories.
I was skeptical about this and still am. If you take away the cloak of
naturalism (oh I like that - it's mine - don't touch it) you expose
yourself as just another type of poetry, as opposed to THE type - such
a move would be tactical folly for the mainstream.
What I think happens now is that they leave the theorizing in the
background, in its correct place as part of a lit course etc, only to
be brought out front house when really needed. In this way front house
can carry on as always. If you look at some of the things Don Paterson
and Sean O'Brian say, and the context/audience in/to which he says
them, you can see this in action.
Tim A.
|