 |
 |
No Alison, I am simply saying that the READING and critical response to a poem is going to be conditioned - to some degree or other - by such things as the iffy area where poetics meets literary power politics. I honestly don't see a way out of this. Don't take too much notice of the word 'schools' - it was Kit's word, not mine, and I think we both know what she means by it. And I do not 'grudge' Heaney's popular success, as you have inferred. In fact I haven't made any such comment at all. I think I made it quite plain where I stand in my opinion of Heaney and 'grudge' never came into it. I am not speaking for others though. Cheers Tim On 11 Apr 2009, at 00:09, Alison Croggon wrote: > Tim - are you really saying that the writing of poetry is entirely > conditioned by which school or group one supposedly belongs to? And > that a state of "innocence" (?) is not possible? Unless you mean that > it's impossible to discuss poetry without tracing literary genealogies > or ideas, which is a little different to discussing contemporary > social power relationships. I personally don't and have never given a > rat's arse about "schools", since on close inspection they generally > seem singularly useless as descriptive groupings, and I do think > individual poets do - if they're interested in poetry at all - retain > a certain innocence, a certain incorrigible belief in poetry itself, > aside from the so-called "world" it inhabits as industrial practice. > Otherwise, why bother? You might as well be working in an office, > vying for the eye of the various corporate bosses. > > For my part, I think Heaney has his moments (I admire Glanmore > Sonnets, for example). I remember years ago Peter R supplied the > adjective "senatorial", which strikes me as an accurate description of > a tone which I personally find less than exciting. Yes, Heaney's a > popular poet. His poems can mean something to people who don't > necessarily read a lot of poetry. Why grudge that? I'm just puzzled > that he generates such spleen. > > xA > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Hi Kit, >> >> Part of the problem here is that if you start with the poems you >> have to >> kind of pretend that all the other stuff about 'schools and groups >> and >> influence and power-politics' doesn't exist, as if you were coming >> to the >> things in a state of innocence, which of course we're not. In my >> experience >> the pretense cannot deal with the pressure - you end up pulling the >> poems >> apart but in a vacuum, without anything to back up your opinions. >> >> I like your description of the 'swotty sensibility' - that tone >> that runs >> through his work is a real turn-off for me, true. There are plenty of >> postmod writers too who have a 'swotty sensibility', but they don't >> have >> that suffocating sense of possessing earthy wisdom, something else >> that rubs >> me up the wrong way. Your comment about him being offputting for >> people >> under a pensionable age and those over who came out of the 60's is >> very >> funny. >> >> Happy Easter >> >> Tim A. >> >> On 10 Apr 2009, at 10:34, Kit Fryatt wrote: >> >>> Fair enough, if you're just not interested. And I can see that the >>> Establishment-logroll-Festschrifty side of Heaney is a powerful >>> disincentive >>> to interest. & even when he's not writing in offeeshal mode he >>> can be >>> "literary" in a sort of earnest 11+, matriculatory way that is >>> offputting >>> and alien to a) people under pensionable age b) people over that >>> age who >>> to >>> some extent bought into the complex of thought and general stuff we >>> sometimes vaguely refer to as "the 60s" c) so just about everyone, >>> really. >>> I think Heaney's fans generally ignore this stuff, but it occurs in >>> worrying >>> volume from _Field Work_ on. Is this sort of swotty sensibility >>> what >>> people >>> mean when they call Heaney a Georgian, I wonder? Because the poetry >>> isn't; >>> but there is something sort of dominie about the intelligence >>> behind the >>> worst of it. >>> >>> But the thing that struck me and dismayed me about the Jacket >>> debate was >>> just how little poetry got discussed. It was all schools and >>> groups and >>> influence and power-politics. I'm not saying those things don't >>> matter, >>> or >>> that poetry takes place somehow transcendentally above or apart >>> from them, >>> but if you want to make a point about a poet, it seems to me the >>> poems are >>> the best place to start, better even (especially) than interview >>> material. >> > > > > -- > Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au > Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com > Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com