Print

---

Roddy,

let me get this clear. I'm afraid the baldness of e-mail has made my posts
look far more committal than they are.

My so called list was an off the cuff reply to the idea that there are only
a handful of British poets. My objective was merely to get past the number
five. Also I was trying to counter the statement that BP is all very
conservative.  It was late last night. I was typing one handed with a baby
on one arm. Include Miles Champion, I think he's wonderful. And anyone else
you've mentioned. Yourself included. I have no interest in proposing a final
list. Though I think it might be helpful to at least some people if we
collated an array of suggestions.

If someone says that they like London they don't have to meet with howls of
"What's wrong with
Manchester "(insert cities, towns or villages of your choice.)

Your commitment to poetry, in your own work and in your reviews is not in
question. I think we have far more in common in our approach than might
appear.

Here's what we have so far:

Tim Allen, David Annwn, Iain Bamforth, Connie Bensley, Sujata Bhatt, Kate
Bingham, Colette Bryce, Matthew Caley, Miles Champion, cris cheek, David
Constantine, Julia Copus, Kwame Dawes, Greg Delanty, Peter Didsbury, Nick
Drake, Ian Duhig, Andrew Duncan, Ken Edwards, Allen Fisher, John Glenday, W.
Graham, Chris Greenhalgh, Vona Groarke, Bill Griffiths, Alan Halsey, John
Hartley, Paul Henry, WN Herbert, Tracey Herd, Selima Hill, John Hughes,
Kathleen Jamie, Brian Jones, David Kinloch, Stephen Knight, Grace Lake, Tom
Leonard, Marion Lomax, Tertia Longmire, Tony Lopez, Helen MacDonald, Angela
MacSeveney, Barry MacSweeney, Glyn Maxwell, Medbh McGuckian, Rod Mengham,
Drew Milne, Geraldine Monk, Edwin Morgan Wendy Mulford, Doug Oliver, Maggie
O'Sullivan, Alice Oswald, Katherine Pierpoint, Tom Pow, Richard Price,
Justin Quinn, Tom Raworth, Deryn Rees-Jones, Denise Riley, Peter Riley, Neil
Rollinson, Anne Rouse, Peter Sansom, Gavin Selerie, Pauline Stainer, John
Stammers, Greta Stoddart, Caitriona Strang, Fiona Templeton,Gael Turnbull,
David Wheatley, John Wilkinson, Frances Williams, Aaron Williamson, Gerard
Woodward, Tamar Yoseloff.

Perhaps others would care to add to this ad hoc assembly.

As you can see, it's still very incomplete.

Again, all I was trying to say was that there are more than a handful of
British poets. And they're not all conservative. I am by no means trying a
palace coup.



best

Randolph Healy

----- Original Message -----
From: Roddy Lumsden <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Forced invisibility and pluralism


> >This exchange made me sit up. Not because of the American link, in fact I
> >suspect that the people Roddy excludes from "British" are perhaps most
> >recognised as such in the US. Or am I wrong?
>
> Okay, Chris, let's knock a nail on the head straight away - I did not
> 'exclude' anyone.  You have to have been reading sloppily, or wishfully,
to
> have come to that conclusion.  My point (again) was that for most readers,
> writers, critics, a term like 'British poetry' equates to a certain,
> 'central' type of British poetry, particularly those who might be
including
> a handful of UK poets in a 'standard' American anthology (this was the
> thread).  Other styles are just not in the diagram, not just your own, but
> much of my work too.
>
> >What really made me sit up was this notion of invisibility. And the
> >encampments of comfy new gen versus barking avants (the hyperbole all
> mine).
> >Here's that super list again:
> >
> >Tom Raworth, Allen Fisher, Denise Riley, cris cheek, Maggie
> >O'Sullivan, Grace Lake, Peter Riley, Andrew Duncan, Wendy Mulford, Alan
> >Halsey, Tony Lopez, Drew Milne, Geraldine Monk, Doug Oliver, Ken Edwards,
> >John Wilkinson, Aaron Williamson, Caitriona Strang, Rod Mengham, Barry
> >MacSweeney, Helen MacDonald, Bill Griffiths, Gael Turnbull, Fiona
> Templeton,
> >Tim Allen, David Annwn, Tertia Longmire, Gavin Selerie
>
>
> Well, what struck me most about Randolph's list was its very selectivity.
> To my knowledge, only two of the list have been recently published by the
> commercial or large specialist publishers and these are the recently
> deceased MacSweeney and Oliver.  Is Randolph's point that all these poets
> deserve to be published by the bigger publishers - to combat that
> invisibility?  Not his main point, I think; why include some Bloodaxe
poets
> if so?  Why is there no room on the list for those other 'linguistically
> innovative' poets who are published by them?  Why no Maggie Hannan, surely
> one of the finest new poets within this area?  Why is Gael Turnbull on the
> list and not his fellow Scot of similar vintage and outlook, G F Dutton?
> Because they are published by Bloodaxe?  Would Prynne have been on the
list
> until last year?  Have Oliver and MacSweeney been reclaimed as invisible,
> post-mortem?
>
> I suspect that its the very invisibility, forced or otherwise, that is
> crucial to some (*some*) followers of the left-field.  I know as teenage
> boys, we would drop a band the moment they had a hit record.  Why are Iain
> Bamforth and Miles Champion not on this list - because they have taken
> Michael Schmidt's shilling?  Carcanet publish many 'innovative' poets,
> Bloodaxe quite a few.  Is Sinclair too 'famous' to be on the list?  And
when
> we move slightly towards the centre, there are other strata of poets who
it
> would be galling to claim aren't 'innovative' or adventurous.  Don't you
> think there are such qualities in the work of Bloodaxe poets such as John
> Hartley Williams, Selima Hill, Glyn Maxwell, Ian Duhig, Medbh McGuckian,
> Peter Didsbury, David Constantine, WN Herbert, Pauline Stainer.  Even
among
> my fellow Scots, is the innovative work of Morgan, Leonard, Graham to be
> deemed unadventurous because they also wrote more 'mainstream' work and
have
> had mainstream plaudits and publication?   Look too at all the interesting
> and unusual (often foreign) work published by Peter Jay at Anvil.
> 'Linguistic innovation' is only one of many 'innovations' and
'adventures'.
> How about those who are extending a poetry of ideas, or admitting cadences
> of language or subject matter formerly estranged from any poetry?  How
about
> those whose poetry extends ideas of philosophy, religion or sexuality?
> Those who write in Scots or dialect or Gaelic or Welsh?
>
> I expect most of the poets on the above list do not crave 'mainstream
> attention' - they're not looking for the Cape deal.  cris cheek made these
> points to me very clearly when we talked about mainstream and publishing a
> few months back.  I was arrogant in assuming that left-field poets wanted
> the same attention and formats and responses as I do as a mainstream poet
> and an interloper in the performance field.  Now you expect me to feel
sorry
> for them because they're not reviewed in the Observer?  Jeez.  If we were
to
> choose yourself and Randolph as the PBS selectors, we would just have a
180
> degree turn round.  The results wouldn't be any more democratic.  And
> besides, most PBS members would stop their subscriptions.  Sad but true.
> 'Verse' just about went under after its LANGUAGE issue, with all the
> complaints and cancelled subscriptions.
>
> I'm never going to agree with Adrian Mitchell's dictum about most poetry
> ignoring people (his poetry has always ignored me, for a start), but if
> one's writing foregoes so much of traditional form, moves away from speech
> patterns, messes with syntax, uses outré vocabulary etc, you simply can't
> expect it to warrant empathy.  How would I go about reviewing your work
> Chris?  It seems to defy criticism, which is surely one of its points.  Or
> Champion's say, whose work is so based on random images, cut-up techniques
> and raw vocab strung together?  Editors are unlikely to hand me work to
> review by any of the above: I don't choose what I review.  I found Brian
> Henry's book very illuminating.  It met me halfway, but I expect he's a
> mainstream pussycat to most on the list above.
>
> Many of the 'institutions' on your 'how many' list exist to serve readers
/
> members / listeners.  They are not there to serve poets and their fashions
> and movements.  I don't doubt that 'innovative' work receives less
attention
> from these places.  Does it ask for it though, or does its vitality demand
> it?  On your list, couldn't we just replace 'Voice Box' with 'Subvoicive',
> 'The Firebox' with 'Conductors of Chaos' or 'Other'.  Do you feel that
such
> meetings, such anthologies would gladly cease to exist if the South Bank
and
> Macmillan were more inclusive?
>
> Here's another list - all of contemporary British and Irish poets who
could
> be thought of as vaguely mainstream - all very talented, but who wouldn't
> score much higher on your list of questions than Randolph's would, despite
> publication in many cases by mainstream and commercial publishers:
>
> Connie Bensley, Sujata Bhatt, Kate Bingham, Colette Bryce, Matthew Caley,
> Julia Copus, Kwame Dawes, Greg Delanty, Nick Drake, John Glenday, Chris
> Greenhalgh, Vona Groarke, Paul Henry, Tracey Herd, John Hughes, Brian
Jones,
> David Kinloch, Stephen Knight, Marion Lomax, Angela MacSeveney, Alice
> Oswald, Katherine Pierpoint, Tom Pow, Justin Quinn, Richard Price, Deryn
> Rees-Jones, Neil Rollinson, Anne Rouse, Peter Sansom, John Stammers, Greta
> Stoddart, Frances Williams, David Wheatley, Gerard Woodward, Tamar
Yoseloff.
>
> I don't doubt that 'power' is a factor here.  But we're talking the poetry
> world, petty stuff, powerwise.  Power here is largely about readership and
> 'curatorship'.  Most of the UK poetry readership finds *my* published work
> baffling and obscure!  At least in the UK, we have a chance of dialogue,
> interchange, changes of heart and mind.  We're not yet in the American
> situation where people rarely read outside of their own sphere (caused by
> numbers as much as blinkers).  Most of my peers, I'm afraid, would shrug
off
> your concerns, disinterested.  'Barking avants' it would be, yes, no
doubt.
> Anyway, this is a long post - I wan't to listen to what others have to
> say...
>
> Roddy
>
>




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