It's a bit odd that Jamie objects to the singling out of the winning poem by Claire Harman. Hasn't the poem already been singled out? Isn't the publicity among other things an invitation to read the poem and try to figure out what makes it special or not special?
I have to admit that I don't understand why the judges thought "The Mighty Hudson" better than the other poems on the shortlist. I don't have a problem with whimsy, necessarily, but I don't think the whimsy in this poem takes us anywhere interesting or new. Indeed, the poem seems intent on giving some sort of life to the archaic image of the circus strongman--shades of Peter Blake or Fellini, perhaps, but faint indeed. And the poem can't seem to decide how cartoonish it wants to be (not a strong man, but Superman, apparently). I don't find the moments where it strains for the startling image remotely compelling--"Heard her hot geyser of giggling"--and there's the use of ostentatious similes ("Bear mountain twirling oddly away like a girl" -- really? isn't this a labored attempt to pull the poem together?), which seems in these late days a cliche at the level of the device. (And aren't phrases like "mythical skyline" and the river "grey as a vein" cliches or pretty close?).
Trying--and failing--to understand why someone would think this a good poem doesn't constitute a personal attack. (I rather liked what CH said in the interview, and anyone who's written about Sylvia Townsend Warner gets my vote.)
I suppose the truisms about prizes include the idea that the right book or person never wins (or they win for the wrong book). It's also true that prizes belong to the neoliberal culture industry with all that that implies--administration, fetishization, etc.
|