 |
 |
Geraldine, Why do you think that the Oxford conference was exclusive? Anyone could submit an abstract if they wanted to talk about something. I'm a PhD student studying Deryn Rees-Jones on whom I gave a paper, but Deryn is not particularly mainstream, which makes me think that actually the conference was not only about mainstream poetry. What I am saying, I guess, is that I don't think that Paul Farley's statement represented what actually went on at the conference. However, I do think that the conference should be on a larger scale so that more people could attend, but in the St Anne's conference centre you couldn't have crammed in any more people. Regards, Zoe Zoe, With all due respect, Deryn Rees-Jones was on the Management Committee/Editorial Board of the conference! I know of several people who would have loved to have given papers but do you think anyone from 'our' camp would have got past Edna Longley and Sean O Brian? No way. I don't think you have any idea of just how ruthless and petty the poetry world is. If they really had wanted a dialogue on Contemporary Brit/Irish Poetry they would have welcomed 'us' in but they daren't because that would be an admission too far that they are taking us seriously. Paul Farley played an active role in the running the conference so we had the agenda straight from one of the horse's mouths, in print, in the Guardian and he made no bones about being anti-experimental. His commentary wasn't only jaundiced he perverted the facts to fit his own agenda by pretending that the 'mainstream' was in need of rescuing from those wicked 'experimentalists' whom he dishonestly suggests are running all the universities (oh really - that's news to us). His biggest lie of all was claiming the conference was aiming to re-engage the 'reader' - I'm sorry Zoe but that is just absolute tosh. The public were 'allowed' into two events: the inaugural talk and the reading but even these were booked up before the 'public' got a sniff of it - or so it seems. I've read your impressions on the conference on your website (thanks for those) and was curious about this interest in the 'Lyric I' because Linda A Kinnahan's substantial academic book called Lyric Interventions: Feminism, Experimental Poetry and Contemporary Discourse came out last year. Oddly she discussing the work of Carol Ann Duffy (that well known 'experimentalist'! - who crops up twice in your notes). Now Kinnahan dedicated a whole chapter and substantial sub chapters to Denise Riley, Wendy Mulford and me. Where any of us mentioned in this debate? I'd be flabbergasted if we were. Why? Because someone out there is daring to say that experimental can be lyrical? To be honest I don't even think my work is 'experimental' and I feel the term is like a bloody big yoke around my neck - I think we all do because it is so often used negatively as meaning obscure or inaccessible. Some of it is 'difficult' but hey John Donne's not exactly Janet and John in verse. I hope this doesn't come across in a hectoring tone because it's not intended - it's just hard to talk about this and make it sound pretty. I don't mind a jot if the mainstreamers want to have a love-in in Oxford but when Farley uses it as a rod to beat us with (us that don't get the reviews in national newspapers, or the awards or high flying academic posts) I just saw red. Best wishes, G ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zoe Brigley" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:50 PM Subject: Re: p.s Oxtail soup