Tim, what you say makes sense, and is the best summation of the situation I've heard. And, yes, I suppose it would be difficult for professionals within this system to make any comment about it, given the pressures they must inevitably be under to show solidarity with their fellow professional “poetic rebels”. 




--------------------------------------

This doesn't surprise me at all Jeffrey. The relationship between  
academia and the 'avant garde' makes it difficult, if not impossible,  
for avant individuals ensconced in academia to face the problem  
directly - when you are 'in' something it is hard to try to look at  
what you are in from the outside. As I've tried to make very clear  
before on this, you cannot hold individuals responsible for the  
processes that have put them (through the limited choices available to  
poets to wrap up their art and their economic survival in one package)  
in such positions.  Their response is often silence and in my  
experience that is probably the most honest response to date. When  
they have responded it has been either to dismiss the issue as gross  
exaggeration, usually by citing how small and beleaguered their little  
communities are compared with the more established and conventional  
literary departments, or by accusing those who question the situation  
as being anti-intellectual etc.

Neither argument, in my opinion, stands up. The relative size of their  
influence, compared with the mainstream academics for example, is  
irrelevant, because the problem of the increasing use of academic  
qualifications in validating the poetry of those holding such  
qualifications goes right across the board, whatever sort of poetry it  
is. If anything the problem is even more heightened within avant  
circles because of the 'difficult' nature of the poetry itself - and  
difficult poetry lends itself more easily to the requirements of  
academic exploration. The accusation of anti-intellectualism is in  
some ways more problematic because, it seems to me, that in the  
history of this thing the majority of those who attack the 'avant  
garde' as being elitist and ivory tower are doing so from a general  
position that would include anti-intellectualism. There are all sorts  
of cultural and political reasons for this of course but it does make  
the arguments of those of us who are definitely not anti-intellectual  
appear to be part of that general opposition, which is understandable,  
but wrong. If it wasn't 'wrong' then it would mean that their notion  
of what it means to be intellectual would have to include its  
artificial cushioning within safe parameters, something which in turn  
would further increase the amount of ammunition for those who oppose it.

My own position on this is pretty clear, but I admit it is easy for me  
to have this position because I am not within academia. Apart for the  
the 'validation' problem (by far the biggest problem in my opinion)  
mentioned above, my other concern is with the poetry itself, how its  
existence as this thing ping-ponging between academy poet and academy  
reader (I won't call them 'critic' because it seems to me that a lack  
of any real criticism is part of the deal between the two) develops  
within that incestuous environment. The ping-ponging continues as poet  
becomes reader and reader becomes poet etc. For the life of me I  
cannot see how this is healthy. Good poets might very well still  
continue to write good poetry, or not, but I can definitely see how in  
such a situation some mediocre poets with the right kind of applied  
intelligence and nouse could thrive, which is so bloody depressing.

Currently most of the poets I know and whose work I really like and  
admire are connected in some way with academia. Many of them are  
friends too. I would really like them to talk about this problem, not  
defensively but objectively.

Cheers

Tim A.