Doug's post is ambiguous as to whether he's justifying Andrew Duncan's
poetry or his criticism, which I see as two very different things, in terms
of the free rein which must be allowed to a personality-based writing. I
wrote the following riposte on the assumption that he meant the latter. I
think Ric assumed that too. We were probably wrong but the following may
stir up some nice dust---
------------
But Andrew Duncan doesn't write "criticism" at all -- he writes polemical
literary history. Are we quite satisfied, then, that the very history of
the activity we are engaged in should be conceded as the product of a mere
personality? So we stand by as he publicly treats all poets he can't read
as (frankly) pieces of shit (mainly by stepping over them) and openly
declares (in a forthcoming book from Liverpool UP, is the news now) that
they have no right to produce poetry and shouldn't be read, and we say
"Well, you know, it's his personality, he can't help it..." or what?
Duncan's punditry treats his own taste as de facto history with virtually
no substantive analysis or critical principal. The prose just weaves
fantasies out of other people's poems, which are valued only as they
subscribe the illusion he fosters. The whole thing is the empire of Duncan
and emphatically not open to the possible varieties of poetry. There's no
excuse for narrow and ungenerous inflexibility in dealing with other
people's creative work, even if you're right.
"Small-scale British poetry internecine wars" is exactly where it's at.
There's no doubt that Duncan can write a certain kind of poem with
tremendous flare.
/PR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|