I’m happy to support you, Tim.
Peter, you’ve missed the point. It’s not about what “academic” means and who can rightly be called one. It’s about avantgarde poets employed by academia giving their poetics students an unfair publishing and promoting advantage because they are operating from within academia.
In the list you give Carol Anne Duffy and Simon Armitage aren’t avantgarde poets. The others could or not be learnèd. What does that word mean anyway in this day an age? The point is that avantgarde poets who work in academia (whether they are learnèd or not) have influence and prestige in avantgarde publishing, conferencing and networking circles, which is helpful to them and any of their students whom they choose to promote.
--------Original Message-----------
Peter Riley wrote:
Yes, but are all academics actually “academics”?
Is Tim one? Carol Anne Duffy? Simon Armitage? J.H.Prynne? Keston Sutherland? Robert Sheppard? Peter Hughes? ……
It makes sense to me to think in terms of an older word, “learnèd”. Some poets are learned and some are not and some are half a dozen of one and six of the other. You’re then talking about features of their poetry rather than their income.
P.
|