 |
 |
Alison - I'm not suggesting that I disagree with all of the article. What I am questioning are two aspects of the article: whether there is a 'new poetry war emanating from Sydney' and whether there is a 'school' of poets, now called the 'Calyx school'. My understanding of Australian contemporary poetry (and poets), those included in Calyx and others who are not, is that difference is recognized and desirable (whereas jk suggests that it is what Australian poets need to do). There is confusion in the article regarding 'established' poets and 'newer' poets. The comments of the "well-known Australian poet" are not evidence that there is a 'new poetry war', aren't they comments relating to the old war? Wouldn't a 'new poetry war' emanate from the formation of an exclusive school, with those excluded not recognizing that 'difference is desirable'? And don't Jill's comments (a poet not included in Calyx) suggest that difference is recognized and desirable? Alison your comments suggest that you recognize difference and that it is desirable - so who are the 'newer' (not established) poets who don't? lots of questions few answers regards deb ----- Original Message ----- From: <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 2:02 PM Subject: Re: A caution > Deb - > > I can't see much war-mongering in JK's article: rather a criticism of > established modes of poetic politicking which are in the end > self-defeating; and also the identification of a _particular_ bunch of > Sydney poets, which he doesn't, to my reading, suggest is the whole of > Sydney. From my keyhole, it's impossible to deny that these "war games" > exist; I've encountered them as well. But identifying their existence > isn't the same as fanning the flames. Surely more a desire towards the > opposite: > > 'Australian poets don't need an industry, they need to recognise that > difference is desirable. I often wonder what poets read when they get > home at night; there is so much animosity between poets here that I doubt > they even glance at the work of other Australian writers. A well-known > Australian poet once said to me that while he admired many of the skills > and qualities of "the other side's" work, he could not do so openly. The > reason: limited government grants, limited publishing > opportunities and a small number of "places in history". This > consciousness of position, of role play, is the sign of a colonial > mentality. Cringe we might, but it's still there.' > > And this too seemed an honest general picture of the kinds of possible > strengths and contradictory frustrations of Australian poetry, without > looking for a fake national "unity" (am I sick of the kind of statement > which talks about "the way forward for Australian poetry", as if you can > map it out): > > 'So, the State of Poetry in Australia? Paranoid, internalised, > fragmented, fraught with tensions. Also diverse, adaptable, inventive, > pluralistic and outward looking. They seem like different portraits, but > they are of the same mosaic, the same canvas with its fragmentations and > mixed media overlays. Ironically, this is a healthy way for it to be. The > state can't get and hasn't got hold of it.' > > The article seemed to me more a critique of various resistances to > pluralistic or international notions of Australian poetry, and of the > defence of a fond idea of national and poetic identity which persists, > and which is hostile to any number of newer or different influences and > poetries; to my thinking, _not_ talking about these things is more likely > to enflame the wars. (It also makes me think of Borges' essay on > Argentine literary nationalism, which I've often thought could be > transposed here). But I like Stravinsky's statement: "Music is my > country". (Or words to that effect). > > I'm less inclined to an ideal of democratic inclusiveness than John is, > but how much I prefer the assumption of a possibility of dialogue - > mounted passionately and without defensiveness, and not assuming or > looking for agreement - to a collection of frigid camps. How can I grow > as a poet, if everyone agrees with me, and if anyone who disagrees with > me is, ipso facto, _wrong_? JK mentions the Jamie Grant/Alan Wearne > face-off: there's a lesson in what to avoid. > > And yes, I'm a Melbourne poet, but all that means is that I live by the > sea in Williamstown and take out my rubbish on Tuesdays - > > best > > Alison