Not so long ago there was some affectionate banter on this list about promoting
Andrew Duncan to the papacy. It feel to me as though the outrage being
expressed about his article - which I've not seen - reflects the other side of
a community's response to a pope whose regard for doctrine always surpasses his
concern for individual souls. I don't think this has anything to do with
Cambridge v London - I've never seen any evidence that Andrew has a loyalty to
a particular group of writers; he seems infinitely interested in all the
varieties of poetry and capable of extraordinary rudeness about any particular
poet. He is writing a protracted manifesto which finds no satisfaction. His
isolation is terrible. That Andrew is to publish with Liverpool UP a
compendious account of twentieth century British poetry should cause to quail
the stoutest heart behind a slim volume. If in this instance he has been
insulting to others' motives that is deplorable, and if his information is
false he undermines one of his best claims on our attention which is his
remarkable range of historical knowledge (in that respect his work is curiously
akin to Eric Mottram's card-index enthusiasm, it's a negative version which
finds fool's gold everywhere). But I think judgements on work, however harsh,
must be allowed - it is others' answers that will demonstrate the work to be
considerable. As for information, I am sure that from contributions to this
thread someone could develop a useful history of the Poetry Review which could
be published more prominently than in First Offence. The efficacy of
information on this list is certainly greater than that contained in First
Offence; already the correction has greater currency than the injury.

Drew Milne has written about the strange shyness from commentary and from
manifesto surrounding the most interesting British writing. A reluctance to
criticise does not seem admirable to me, especially when so much uncourageous
bitchery is abroad - it smacks more of a terror of rejoinder than a neighbourly
supportiveness. It's hard to swallow, I admit, when a life's work is condemned
without interior discrimination and it is hard to dissociate this from personal
abuse for a poet who may have submitted him or herself to poetry; but however
much or little read, however much or little reviewed, I imagine each of us is
sustained by two or three respondents we trust and come to recognise that this
is best if the work is not to be governed by others' expectations. As though
this were a serious risk! It is indifference and over-much diffidence which sap
the individual and our community if that's what it is.

Meanwhile I suggest we should respond here and elsewhere with what we can say
well of Bill Griffiths or Thomas A. Clark rather than respond with a mirrored
vilification of Andrew Duncan.

"Lawrence Upton." wrote:

> From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 16 November 1998 21:38
> Subject: Re: Clive Bush actually
>
> |I notice that no one has taken up Andrew's remark that audiences at Poetry
> |Society readings fell sharply (this is not necessarily a criticism from me,
> |note). That again may have left some record.
>
> As one who was there at as many of readings as anyone - I think - I say it
> is isn't true.
>
> Audiences were up and down. I have spoken before against the idea of a
> golden age. It was hard work in all ways. But the room was often full.
>
> Not only that, but the level of activity increased sharply. We put on a lot
> more. We brought people in.
>
> |Andrew's opinion of Bill's work (or of Thomas A. Clark's) is none of my
> |business.
> Indeed
>
> |Can't the damn
> |quarrel between Cambridge and London be laid to rest at last?
> You've lost me