> 
> Kate Clanchy? Come on Peter, it wouldn't be that painful to post the name,
> or would that be promoting her? Can't have that! When she read in Hobart
> last year, the response was amazing. I'd say 90% of people hadn't heard
> of her prior to the reading, and yet she sold a truckload of books.
> People liked the poetry. They didn't buy her book because it was published
> by Chatto. To answer your question from down here, a large number 
> of people / listeners / then readers responded positively to her 
> "little" book of poems, though it doesn't now give her celebrity status.
> It gives her a much wider readership than if she'd never been
> supported / promoted by the Brit. Council. Armitage was on this tour 
> as well, and his books sold out in all the shops. His readings 
> were wonderful. Good luck to 'em! 
> 

Peter may speak for himself but I don't think Anthony has
answered his very powerful posting by this response alone.
Peter's point that Kate Clanchy is a poet on the strength
of 10 or 15 poems alone still stands for me, as a description
of an attitude by the British Council to selection of poets
and what poetry is, viz Peter's comparison with Crozier. He
didn't name, I didn't know it was her, yet still his point
is made for me, I knew what he meant. It is not lyric
poetry per se that is at fault, but a belief that in
formalist terms one expects a poet in this delusory
mainstream to have one perhaps two forms and maybe
one or two good poems in them, and then pad out a book
or a reading with dross. This is palpably different
from, for example, Crozier, using one-page poems (to
name lyric differently) to refract on each other,
or as deliberate tryptich and so on, as a painter
or musician would, ie as an *artist* should. Good
luck to her if you like, but also good luck to the
surviving hopes that a continuum be made to other
poetries and that sometimes other poetries be
honoured too. Incidentally, Peter's other point
is not answered here (to my satisfaction) either:
that these *purchasers* Anthony mentions are not
necessarily *readers*; that those who *seek out*
poets other than Hughes and Harrison are readers
and of roughly equal number to the readers who
seek out Crozier and others. Promotional tours
whip up hype and good on them, especially if they
allow that whipping maybe to clear damn near well
anyone who reads including Crozier if they'd invite
him. It is around the day-to-day seeking out of poets
that readerships may be made and compared, and it is
to that readership that the reviewers Peter questions
appeal with their norms and so on, as to a larger
readership audience; this is why Peter quite rightly
declares those norms and that mainstream unreal.


Ira





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