Re Simon Smith's questions
>Firstly, am I right in thinking that the most important event of that
decade was the >unseating of Eric Mottram, Lee Harwood etc from the Poetry
Society?
Surely the most important event, given such an analysis, would be the
*appointment of EM to editorship of PR. As a result we have the reviews and
a lot that flowed from that
Only Eric was unseated. Others resigned.
>Have the events of the mid-70's left us the present status quo, with the
so-called >avantgarde "on the outside", rendered invisible?
avant-garde?
>Were there other more subtle pressures operating >that meant the PS would
>inevitably fall into the hands of a now seeming >mainstream.
It never really left those hands. _We_ won in electoral terms, but they
changed the rules. Even when we had the _power_ we found it hard to change
things and it was an endless struggle to get everyone turning up to keep the
voting majority. Nor should we think of unanimity. There were those on _our_
side who were against _us_ - I remember hearing one now counted as _one of
us_ saying _the arts council are gentlemen; they can be trusted_ That is why
I would stress the importance of EM's editorship rather than anything else.
Everything else was very worthwhile, great fun etc etc, but it didn't last
long and much of it was poorly attended. Recollections of always full
auditoria belong with white christmases and so on
>What I want to get at is the truth>
come on! & I think we must avoid a sense of a golden age - there wasn't one
as to consensus, I think people were a little more tolerant then of others'
poetries - wch is to say that I think the degree to wch most of us follow
poets rather than poetry now is greater
i
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|