 |
 |
Dear Rik Rik wrote: I'm intrigued - can someone define "new writing types" for me please? Your question is the answer! The "new" was attached to the title of the conference in the same way "new" was attached to Labour, cornflakes, etc. Indeed, the conference should have been titled "old writing types." I mean, a whole panel turning their collective nose up at a question about the Internet, said it all. "New" is pure spin from some government think tank like Demos. Even if we bend the phrase to 'new types of writing,' then in the sphere of poetry there wasn't any representation at all of 'new types of writing.' As I understand it, 'new poetries' covers sound, kinetic, concrete and digital poetry and poetry which crosses over art forms. Nothing of this kind at the conference. In the evening there were more contemporary representations of oral/performance poetry and some really interesting community writing - yet these performances were additional to the conference itself. The most interesting of the seminars concerned self-publishing. But that was it. Because poets were talking around their own work, there wasn't any real sense of excitement about writing itself - just the slippery pole of "career progression." Also, seminars were entirely book based. There was no discussion of collaborative work, collectives or performance. I'm all for magazines and books - entirely. But surely poetry must be broader and certainly more life affirming and exciting. Luckily many people - many on this list - are working in different ways than those at the Norwich conference. So, I humbly suggest, this is a very good place to look for 'new writing types.' Best wishes, Rupert