I agree with what you say, Tim. It just seems me that the mainstream see what they are doing (at the point of doing it) as merely acts of self-expression, devoid of theoretical impulses. Yes, as you say, any theoretical aspect has become long naturalised, and this shouldn’t be overlooked in literary criticism of mainstream poetry. But compared with the more methodological approaches of theory-led poets, mainstream approaches (which I see as often intuitive) can’t practically be called theoretical, despite the theory underlying it, as that theory has become naturalised. Whereas, the un-naturalised theories of theory-led poets do consciously inform their work—that’s the point of their doing it--to let people know they are doing it.
Original Message:
Well yes, that's one of the things I disagreed with Robert about - the extent, or not, to which such a theory was tactically organised. As I said, I remain skeptical about the extent of the mainstream's
theorizing. It depends of course on what we mean by theory, in this situation, and what we mean by 'organise'. The mainstream is not just the 'School of Quietude' either, it has different faces and conflicting pushes behind it - look at the confused tangles Paterson gets himself into, the poor man really doesn't know where he is at times.
Of course I agree that any theorizing on the mainstream side is not on a par with Bernstein et al, but, as I've pointed out before, this lack of 'theory' is its strength, is its advantage - but, what shall we call it? - behind the lack of 'theory' there lies a huge theory, long standing, or a whole mix of theories, all long naturalised by use and habit. It is not just a matter of being lazy, it is of never having been given the opportunity to do otherwise, or alternatively doing everything in ones power to avoid any such opportunity. It is safe. It is successful. Why change? A problem with trying to talk about this is that it can all sound over dramatic.
Did you see Dave Bircumshaw's little designation of Duffy, in another tag, as being 'social realism lite'? Realism of different hues plays a big part in mainstream poetics. Realism has all kinds of theoretical bases - literary, philosophical, political etc., and by that I mean it has theories about how certain shared cultural assumptions can be manipulated by a poetry writing individual to produce what on its terms are good poems - poems rooted in a reality while spiritually transcending it through the elevation of the poet's 'thoughts' into an aesthetic object, the poem. These people are not all twerps. They are dedicated too. What am I trying to say?........... perhaps I am saying that all of this cannot be just down to habit and laziness - there are all sorts of shared cultural positions, ideas about language, ideas about the use of literature, that form the basis of
their poetics - their theories about poetry in other words.
|