I agree with Keston in that I don't feel I got a drubbing for the wild and
varied reading post, and indeed I would support him and Lawrence (both of
whom share passion about poetry, but certainly not misogyny) in their right
to like what they like and read what they read. However, I wouldn't wish to
be caricatured for reading too widely or treading in other camps. This list
has broadened my reading and toppled my preconceptions and indeed many of my
literary vices, which is how I would have it, being persuaded rather than
cajoled or forbidden. Nevertheless, boredom, asinity, violence and
inadvertent comedy are not the sole property of the women I mentioned, nor
indeed the poetries they represent, so I must confess to finding some of the
earlier posts unnecessarily barbed in that regard. Unfortunately, the
avant-garde (for want of a better turn of phrase) is not always the life and
soul of the party, nor is it always the locus of linguistic innovation.
Though I am not suggesting that the women I mentioned prove this.
I was more than aware that the post would introduce some debate, which is
partly why I made it. I suppose there were 'assertions' being made in a very
slapdash way, sorry about that, they were scrawls rather than considered
views (too much late night beer and pretzels), but I do confess to reading,
liking (at some point and still in some cases) and owning all the poets
mentioned, as well as a host of other (women) poets, nearly all of whom Doug
has mentioned. Anne Rouse herself is a very considerable talent. If anything
my list was way too short.
At the core of my post was the desire to precipitate the debate around
whether women's poetry avoids some types of poetic discourse because it is
women's poetry, which is where this debate started, when Doug mentioned that
Alice was leaving us for pastures less sexist. The responses were coloured
more by whether the poetry was successful in its own right, gender aside,
and that's surely an acceptable reply, but not the one I was after. Anyway,
I can't asnwer this matter, nor would I want to, that's up to the women. But
I do hope some debate will come out of these posts. Certainly around what is
permissable or desirable content.
What I wouldn't want is for all of the new voices that had emerged recently
to be silenced. Something refreshing was taking place and I wouldn't want an
ill-considered post of mine to quell any new input. Nor would I want to set
up an adversarial position in purporting that some forms of poetic discourse
are better than others. I do not want to establish a moral majority nor yet
a democracy of poetic discourse nad a parliament of powers forever divided
by a sword's length. Where reading is concerned, the dictatorship of the
self is the tyranny of righteousness.
all the best
Chris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|