I may have this all wrong but Hobsbaum wasn't, I thought, a promoter at all but rather a convener. I don't think he wielded that kind of influence in publishing etc, which is why the whole centrality given to him has always struck me as bizarre. I defer to Robin on this.
J
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: British & Irish poets <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:42:03
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: British & Irish poets <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In fairness
I don't feel able to contribute further until I've looked at some of
Hobsbaum's criticism. I notice there is a book called "Tradition and
Experiment in British Poetry". Apart from all the promoting, I'd be
very interested to know which poetry he specifically rejected.
Jamie is right about our taste. Of all those poets Hobsbawm (both
spelling seem to be accepted) is said to have promoted Hughes and
Plath seem to me to stand out as the real thing, with all attached
problems. But I actually don't much like the idea of a kind of
professional "poet promoter" either. There's been endless trouble with
such roles in radical quarters too.
Pr
|