A little ago Clifford Duffy came on to the list re Nuttall and Heaney and
Hughes and a few of us responded including me. This resulted in an exchange
back channel - I sd to Clifford if I was to respond I'd like to on the list
and he agreed to that for wch I am grateful - 

So Clifford on 6th May you wrote << I am totally in disagreement with you
both about Hughes. And
Heaney is simply a great great poet.>> I think the other in the _both_ was
Allen Fisher

and then in response to my suggestion I respond on the list you wrote

<<Dear L, well naturally I would like to "debate" it. But I ought to
explain that at this moment in time I may not have a lot of time to
"rebutt" anything  you say.
        But I'll tell you what let's start and I'll see what I can do. I
would suggest if that is possible that if you are going to show that Heaney
and Hughes are no longer "up to par" that you supply quotes as that
is what I would do.>>

and then you wrote << Anyhow Im writing a rather lengthy response to yer
own and others who seem to havea
problem with Hughes and Heaney. I think  they are great and nothing is
going to change that. Is it for political or publishing conflicts that you
andseveral others dont care for Heany and Hughes? Other than that I cant
imagine why you would think they were "not writing" or "dead" as several of
the others have said in the list. My own take on poets I dont care for, for
whatever reason is indiffernce, I would not argue over them. There are
so many bad poets anyhow and it doesnt matter in the long run, because they
will all be forgotten and lost to oblivion.>>

What I had wanted to say but in front of everyone is that I have an
enormous trouble with this concept of great poet. I think it is suspect. I
think it needs testing. Where does it come from? Where is it going? Is a
Nobel prize a sign of greatness. Is there a greatness meter. I wanted to
investigate that with you Clifford and anyone else. I am not sure now that
you have said _ I think they are great and nothing is going to change that_
that it is worth it - but my questions remain

Actually, in that last quote Clifford you are mixing up what Allen said and
what I said. Hughes I think is bad... Or not terribly good. It has nothing
to do with publishing or politics. Heaney - I am not so taken with what he
is doing now. I wouldn't say dead. But I do get a headache when I hear
great poet and partly it is that I want to know what a great poet is... how
we define that... how the term functions... Is this a purely technical term
or does it not reflect upon the social and political use to which the
poetry is put or could be put. I see little point in quoting lines at each
other to establish greatness until we have agreed what constitutes
greatness

When you repeat great as in _great great poet_ I believe I hear the cadence
of belief and when you say that nothing will alter what you think then I
become more fixed in my belief that you are a believer

One needs to at least consider why one does not  _care_ for a poet.
Otherwise what's it all for. We'd all be stuck. I cant read this stuff it
doesnt rhyme. Or I cant read this stuff it rhymes.

Caution over greatness in poets should be reflected in caution over badness
in poets. Not caring for a poet is an extremely suspect clue to potential
badness. As to the belief that bad poets will inevitably meet oblivion
whereas implicitly that great poets will not is I believe the whig
interpretation of history. Or maybe it was toupee.

Anyway Clifford - how does one identify a great poet - criteria please?

Lawrence Upton


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%