 |
 |
Not so puzzling, Fran, given the well-entrenched retro-feminist "female voice" strain in this country anyway--and of which we should be wary, as Alison points out, particularly in terms of assimilating any and all poetry by women imaged on childbirth or associated gender-specific biological functions, the romanticization of which via "the female voice" is if anything antifeminist (IMHO). As for what I said about Page's "enviable position in Canadian poetry," I was being ironic about the covert issue in this thread of poetry's (and various poets') relative national positions--and positionings--in the context of this UN/Mt. Everest event, which of course is what's drawn so much attention to Page's poem. Her own Canadian-poetic status I gleaned from what had been said about her by Ram and Doug Barbour (the latter a very reliable source for such evaluations, in my experience). Your different take is interesting, though, and well worth having--not least because you can speak to an intersection of national poetic politics as a Canadian poet now living and writing in Australia. I think the way the UN "Dialogue" event is being publicized (spin-doctored?) relative to English-language poetry as a globalized or at least international phenomenon can't help but intensify national poetic politics in an already fraught atmosphere of too many competitors for scarce resources, including the symbolic capital of success, reputation, "profile" (as it's come to be called). JK's very interesting Sydney Morning Herald piece of Jan. 27th speaks very much to this atmosphere in Australian poetic politics these days (as his title alone--"Poets Cornered"--indicates), where he offers the following "psychology test": "if you've been scouring this article looking for names then you're an Australian poet; if you've been reading for any other purpose, you're not. Australian poetry, as with many or most national poetries, is about names" (http://www.smh.com.au/news/0101/27/text/spectrum6.html). That's true here, too, and is never more evident than when goodies such as the UN event seem to offer a good career move, just as famine relief did for some ambitious rock stars of the 1980s--which is not to denigrate or deride the poets who are giving their time and their names (precisely) to this enhanced profiling of poetry or to foregrounding the issue of world peace, whichever way they see it. But however irreproachable their motives may be, the fact is that many of the poets in this group don't need to do it for careerist reasons, while many who have seemed to be scrambling (on this list at least) for a piece of the "Dialogue" action probably do see it as a good career move. And many (on this list and elsewhere) will see nothing wrong with that either. Candice on 2/5/01 7:40 AM, Frances Sbrocchi at [log in to unmask] wrote: > I'm a bit puzzled by anyone who knows P.K. Page's work thinking about her > as a "feminist". She is a very old lady and probably began publishing with > the initials > not to be considered as such. Neither can I see her as having an "enviable > position in > Canadian poetry. Her work extends over many many years and there are > so many others since her time. Perhaps it is her long connection with South > America, (her husband was an ambassador in Brazil) that brought the Neruda > quote to mind. This poem seems to me very different from most of her > earlier work, I found it less interesting than most but it is difficult for > those > who are young, relatively youthful, or new to the field to interpret the poet > rather than the particular poem. I too wonder about the choice of piece but > think > we are giving the whole matter more attention than the work deserves. Fran > Yes, and I took this part as referring to Alison--"Female poets > already occupying a confident space on the bookshelves, with > editors and in their publishing house with several collections > to their name can rest there. They have choices, but there is > no need for struggle, no need for change, no need for activism!"-- > because "For Alison!" followed so soon thereafter. > > But I see now that it could equally well apply to P.K. Page's > enviable position in Canadian poetry--one that will soon enable > her to bring "the female voice" front and center on the world- > poetry stage--so perhaps this was my "misconstrual." > > It is very hard for a woman of my generation (I'm 52) to listen > to younger women blathering on about my relative freedom from the > "struggle," the "change," and the "activism" they would claim only > for themselves now--and only because they don! > 't! > know or choose to > ignore their own history as feminists--Candice > There is no such thing as the "female voice". There are, > of course, poets who are women. > is, Alison, I hesitantly think, a comment of yours which Helen's post > _appears_ to pick up on and follow through in ways which seem to be > implicity an associational critique. Of course, Helen could post now or soon > and aver that this is just a misconstrual, a mishap of wide generalisations, > which would be for the better. > > why should men > have all the good stuff? Since when were intelligence, skill, erudition > solely reserved for men? > Absolutely. Possession of shining virtues and the state of being trodden on > ( I could phrase that less decorously) are conditions that fate distributes > as blindly as everything else. But we can all equally democratically inch > towards the former. > david > I think we should be extremely wary of that definition of "feminine" > which seeks to infantilise us, or to define us solely by ! > ou! > r biological > female functions. It's rather close to "don't bother your pretty head > with that grownup stuff", which is of course the velvet glove on the fist > of domestic violence. And we should be aware, also, of the limitations > there have been on men: on another list, a couple of male poets are > discussing how domesticity, when written about by men, has also been > trivialised by critics as "unimportant". > > Best > > Alison