I think I must answer, as I joined in re _carping at and quasi-public
tale-telling about one particular individual_. (John Cayley)
John asks _Has he done anything that is politically, ideologically,
poetically, (even) critically beyond the pale?_
Politically and ideologically, I believe he has.
To receive an abusive demand for money goes beyond being upset as a
_delicate_ or _over-refined_ sensibility. THAT came through the door -
whispered as it were. I was sitting within feet of my accuser the other day
and he did not accuse me publicly though he could have done. I didn't know
it, or I could have initiated the exchange, because I thought the matter
was closed, but he had his chance. The first message I put down to
immaturity - _but I want it_ is how it looked to me; but a repetition, so
long after, goes beyond what I can tolerate.
I never expected here to see a discussion called _unseemly_. I regret
having offended.
Is this just a _poetics_ list? Surely it is the british poets list and
these are matters affecting british poets. We have several stages from the
initial point but it is still relevant. *My* aim was to warn by recording
my experience as much as anything else. I would worry if it went on and on.
I did consider carefully whether to join in here on this topic. I had
considered it before and, obviously, hesitated. I think it was
appropriate. However, it worried me *because the person concerned is not on
this list* and I have written to NJ this morning so that he is not
excluded.
It was I who used the word _stories_ and I think, now I am thinking, that
was inappropriate, probably showed an _unseemly_ pleasure in the telling
though the pleasure derives I suspect partly from having bottled it up.
Nevertheless, I need to consider my motives in view of my choice of words
I do not underestimate the significance of what has been achieved
by 6T; but everything is up for examination as far as I am concerned, not
attack, examination, especially given the extent and claims of this
particular enterprise. Someone is doing an astonishing amount for other
poets though they are also putting themselves on the same bill quite often.
I have no trouble praising what is achieved but it is also important to
question if all is as it seems AND I don't think it is.
I said nothing about the blurbs he writes, but it seems to me that it was a
point made in the context of cris cheek having sd that *everything* related
to a performance is relevant. The reference to NJ's blurbs was - I thought
- a reference to that statement, a contribution to the debate. Amongst
other things, it questioned whether any content in a blurb is acceptable
that gets audience... Our response to poets' work must be in part a
response to how they are presented to us, how they present themselves.
Advertising blurbs are part of that image.
NJ did not step on my budgetary toes - I am not quite sure what that means
but I am pretty sure he didn't. I described what he did. It wasn't just
stepping on toes.
---------------------------------
John C's general comments, suggesting a more stoical response on attendance
at readings are sensible though _it was always like this_ has never
appealed to me as a philosophy. No he has never been asked to guarantee
attendance and I probably got it out of proportion. I think I have said
that.
However, and let this apply to ALL readings, this isn't a counselling
session for me!, while I have been and remain a believer is paying fees
wherever possible, this is not just a matter of hiring labourers worthy or
otherwise. I think it is relevant to debate, on a poets list, the extent of
people's enthusiasm and WHY that enthusiasm is at the level it is.
L
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|