Dear List,
1. David Bircumshaw seems to assert that a piece of his in 'Angel
Exhaust' entitled 'Endlines (after Bill Griffiths)' does not
constitute an attack on me (Bill) or part of any attack on me.
What he does not let list members know is that 'his' poem is
a parody of a form of line structure I once used for a small
piece, and removing the rather ironic acknowledgement will
hardly change the unwelcome relationship. It is not as though
it is an unwanted dedication; the wording is specifically 'after
Bill Griffiths' that is, it is a copy of, a parody of, or otherwise
derivative of my work. But I am concerned - not least for his
sake - that some might consider David Bircumshaw's version
rather malicious and abusive. His reputation might suffer
accordingly, even in the world of tower blocks and High Culture,
while I am liable to be blamed for objecting to what I see as
unfair comment, by being told I am 'effectively publicising it'.
In a one-off situation, I might well accept that and leave be.
In the context of 'Angel Exhuast' matters seem to me to stand rather
differently.
Would this secondhand piece by David Bircumshaw have been tolerated
or published in any magazine other than 'Angel Exhuast' edited by
Andrew Duncan solo after the mysterious departure of Adrian Clarke?
Did David Bircumshaw submit it to any other editors before contacting
Andrew Duncan for example?
I cannot recall that I have ever been honoured with this sort of
tribute before in any other magazine. Nor is it really so
unexplained a one-off curiosity or Piltdown oddity if you consider
the abuse 'Verbi Visi Voco', edited by Bob Cobbing and myself,
attracted in an earlier issue or the way the feeling against
myself and other poets revealed itself in such bitter personal abuse
in the 'First Offence' article that followed. David Bircumshaw claims
non-involvement or ignorance of such writing, but nowhere quite
manages to deny support of their content and method. (Ladies and
Gentlemen of the List, I ask you, are we to assume he had never read
a copy of 'Angel Exhuast' before submitting 'his' poem to it?)
2. In particular, I beg to remain unconvinced of his qualifications
to serve as a political ombudsman, judging and denouncing -- who
other than (apparently) the standard opponents of High Culture
(who have suddenly transformed into the Tory party)? Yet Rembrandts
rust in the vault of company director and trade union alike, I dare
say, and leave us unconvinced that any reversion to a past of
strange prejudices will do much good. Perhaps I exacerbated this
confusion by use of the word 'elite', which David Bircumshaw takes to
mean literally rich or privileged, whereas the sense I was angling for
was more an arrogance, an imperviousness to the respect due to other
human beings, a belief that one's own talent or attainment entitled
one to exemption from any come-back from an injured party, or indeed
any accountability at all.
This sort of elitism is a distorting mirror in which objections
become 'bendings and twistings of truth', objectors are charged with
'seeing things' and inventing 'conspiracy' (not a word I introduced
into the correspondence, please note). Indeed it would never occur
to me, even by implication, to suggest that someone who opposed me was
automatically a liar or mentally ill. On the contrary, I weigh their
words carefully and try not to get too distracted.
Dare we reiterate certain basic facts? David Bircumshaw's attempt to
copy my work is the sort of act that is liable to cause objection
and offence in any context. In 'Angel Exhuast' it can only be
construed as part of a confrontational editorial policy that I have
deplored on behalf of my friends, but feel also entitled to object to
on my own behalf.
His refusal to withdraw the item from the Internet, or even to
understand why it was wrong to place it there, exemplify an attitude
I find it impossible to accept or come to terms with.
bill
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
