And with a translation for old duffers like me –hey I enjoyed that wonder what it would sound like read what stresses that sort of thingy? P thangyied ! From: British & Irish poets [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Bircumshaw Sent: 19 February 2010 16:44 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry I think Celan put the problem better than anyone else: (from Weggebeizt) das bunte Gerede des An- erlebten — das hundert- züngige Mein- gedicht, das Genicht. Full text : http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000997.php On 19 February 2010 16:14, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Robin, you could put it that way; though I don't like much of the Romantics either. On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:52:06 -0500, Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: ><< >Robin, you’re right. But I’ve never rated the poets you mention as poets >anyway. Great prose writers, yes. >>> > >Gosh, Jeffrey, how admirable to see the spirit of Matthew Arnold's dismissal >of Pope as a masterpiece of prose still alive and well! > >Now I know where to go to find the spirit of the current zeitgeist >incarnated. And just as Arnold was so right in abolishing such a mass of >writing as irrelevant to poetry, and leaving only a few sprigs >retrospectively illuminated by the bonfire created by the Romantic movement, >confidently and prophetically predicting that in a hundred years time, no >one would read anything *other than the Romantics (and those few writers >before them who palely foreshadowed their coming), so I'm sure that you will >be proved equally right. > >Robin > > > >On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:49:27 -0500, Robin Hamilton ><[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]> >> >><< >>The only rule I have is that a poem should not be a short story, or >>vignette. Everything else is allowed. >>>> >> >>Oops -- there goes every single Browning dramatic monologue. And >Chaucer >>... For starters ... >> >>The demolition derby would extend as far back as Archilochus. Lucky >Homer >>wrote such a long text (or texts), otherwise the very foundations of >Western >>Literature would be trembling in their ... foundations. >> >><< >>“You systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy you >>find in various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps >>because it allows you to happily free-associate.” >> >>I think most people free-associate at some point when reading poetry. >I >>always thought this was the point of poetic language—to allow for >this. >>Poetry that precludes such an act, in my view, is not poetry. >>>> >> >>"My name is Ostentatious, King of Kings. Look on my works in a >strictly >>post-modernist subjective fashion, or else." >> >>As Shelby might have said in her well-known 14 line vignette. Or was >it >>Humpty Dumpty? Pound (if one may be allowed such an appeal to >authority) >>said that poetry should be *better written* than prose, not simply >vaguer. >> >>Robin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:48:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>>Jeff, I think once again we've reached an impasse. >>> You have very specific, lexical rules for determining the quality of >a >>>poem, and yet seem to me often tone deaf to, or just uninterested >in, >>other >>>elements that I consider equally or sometimes more significant. You >>>systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy you find >>in >>>various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps because it >>>allows you to happily free-associate. Stuff you're not interested in >you >>>refer to as "technique" and as merely "formal", by which I take you to >>mean >>>inessential or secondary. I've tried on more than this occasion to >>suggest >>>why I find these criteria reductive and unhelpful, but you only seem >to >>>understand a small portion of what I'm saying. Otherwise I can't see >>why you >>>should need to instruct me with comments like "Bad poetry can >rhyme >>also you >>>know", adding again that "the presence of technique shouldn't always >>be the >>>deciding factor for quality". "Technique" per se doesn't really interest >>me, >>>as I've already said - even the term bores me though I guess it >could >>be >>>resuscitated - and I'm quite aware lots of bad poetry rhymes. >>> >>> No need to apologize for your assumption that "simple, non- avant- >>garde >>>language" would please me. But to clarify it's not just that I've never >>>stated such a preference: I've never had it. Neither now - nor in the >>past. >>>(The poets I began doing some soon-abandoned, academic work on >>were John >>>Berryman then Hart Crane, neither of whom write what I would >>consider >>>"simple" language. The poets I've written on at some slight length >>over the >>>last years have been Montale and Dante, again far from simple, >>though you >>>could find some lines here and there that are powerfully so. Still >more >>>recently I've translated and written briefly on Valerio Magrelli whose >>>language is often deceptively simple, in other words achieving >>complex >>>effects with plain language, though, again, some of his poems >employ >>a >>>formidably technical vocabulary. These last months I've been >>translating the >>>Mexican poet David Huerta whose poems are densely metaphoric and >>>linguistically complex. Excuse this biographical detour, but it's >>>frustrating to be so consistently misconstrued. I'm only guessing >>these >>>misunderstandings arise because you consider me a "mainstream" >>writer - and >>>because you think you know exactly what that makes me.) >>> >>> Because I don't subscribe at all to the rules which you apply to >poet >>>after poet, I feel quite at liberty to like and enjoy many whose >>language >>>would appear to you "lexically" plain or dull. >>> >>>Jamie >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]> >>>To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:56 PM >>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry >>> >>> >>>“Since you're keen to make distinctions between poetry and prose, I'd >>>have thought these things might have interested you more.” >>> >>>My point in such comparisons is to point out the contrast between >the >>>lexical differences rather than the formal ones. Bad poetry can rhyme >>>also you know, so the presence of technique shouldn’t always be the >>>deciding factor for quality. >>> >>>“Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably >>>schmaltzy.” >>> >>>And you didn’t Armitage’s poem?! >>> >>>“Speaking of suppositions, why do you assume "simple, non-avant- >>>garde language" would please me? I don't think I've ever stated >such a >>>preference.” >>> >>>Perhaps not expressly, but your vigorous defense of the Armitage >>poem, >>>here, and, at other times, mainstream poetry in general has led me >to >>>believe this. If I’m wrong, my apologies. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:01:08 -0000, Jamie McKendrick >>><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>>Jeff, >>>> I fear you haven't really considered my point about technique - >that >>>sound >>>>and rhythm are not decorative extras for a poem but integral to it. >>>Since >>>>you're keen to make distinctions between poetry and prose, I'd >have >>>thought >>>>these things might have interested you more. As for the poem's >>>imagery, I've >>>>already said why I think it works. >>>> Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably >>>schmaltzy. It >>>>is not at all on a similar theme and it's linguistically inept, though >>>>despite his reverential mention of Wordswoth and Browning "who >all >>>seem to >>>>be saying the same thing" I don't suppose he'd think it was a >poem. >>>Speaking >>>>of suppositions, why do you assume "simple, non-avant-garde >>>language" would >>>>please me? I don't think I've ever stated such a preference. >>>>Jamie >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]> >>>>To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:11 PM >>>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry >>>> >>>> >>>>Jamie, technique in itself does not make a poem. It is the >>combination >>>>of that with imagery, allusion, metonymy, a certain mystery, etc. >The >>>>Armitage poem has little of the latter aspects. That’s why I am >>>>criticising it. I find the poem’s sentiments and execution of them >>one- >>>>dimensional. >>>> >>>>If you want to hear a better rendition of a similar theme then listen >>to >>>>Clifford T. Ward’s song“Home Thoughts from Abroad” which does it >>>>better, in simple, non-avant-garde language (which should please >>>you). >>>>Here is a link to it on YouTube: >>>> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9G0ENZJLI8 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:49:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick >>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Jeff, >>>>> I'm not sure why what I've written should seem " mostly >technical >>>>points" >>>>>or exactly what it would mean if they were. >>>>> Surely technique, in which sound-effects play a large part, >should >>>be >>>>>relevant in describing why it's a poem rather than "perhaps, good >>>prose >>>>>fiction" as you call it. I've also mentioned a complex of imagery >>that >>>is >>>>>tightly worked, and to spell out a bit more what I called the >>vaporous >>>>>elements in the poem, the 'st' sounds which begin with "missed" >>>>(homophone >>>>>'mist'), which leads to 'steam' in the next line, then is heard again >>in >>>>>just, dust, lipstick, lost, upstairs, understanding, lipstick, >>>>>stowed...just >>>>>to take one thread of sound through the poem (and there are >>>others) - >>>>>suggest to me that Armitage has, even at this very early stage of >>his >>>>>writing an acoustic sense that can be a central part of the way we >>>>hear a >>>>>whole poem - rather than a mere technical point, or even as "the >>>>measure of >>>>>poetic accomplishment" which you bring out of nowhere. What I'd >>>>argue is >>>>>that these are effects, including the rhythmic ones which (I agree >>>with >>>>>Robin) are a marked and positive aspect of Armitage's work, that >>>>make a flat >>>>>paraphrase an utterly insufficient means of describing (and >>>>intentionally >>>>>negating) the poem. This poem or any other. It seems to me that >>>your >>>>>obsessive concentration on 'empirical markers' means you ignore a >>>>whole >>>>>range of other features integral to a poem. >>>>> (Your Jacket article makes it clear, as I'd guessed all along, that >>>your >>>>>zealotry on behalf of this term "empirical" is deeply indebted to >>>>Easthope, >>>>>in particular to his dim and philistine reading of Edward Thomas's >>>>>'Aldlestrop'. But perhaps we oughtn't to get into that again.) >>>>>Jamie >>>>> >>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:23 PM >>>>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Jamie, these seem mostly technical points you like about the >poem. >>>>But >>>>>the poem is still like a thousand other poems expressing similar >>>>>sentiments. It is, perhaps, good prose fiction writing; the sort >that >>is >>>>>esteemed in some creative writing classes, but is this to be >>>considered >>>>>the measure of poetic accomplishment? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:55:09 -0000, Jamie McKendrick >>>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>It's a poem written when Armitage, I'm guessing, was 25, or >>>younger. >>>>>There's less fizz and word play in it than in many of the poems of >>his >>>>>first book: it's quieter and maybe not that ambitious. That said, I >>like >>>>>the vaporous sweep of the poem from its first image of >>>>>what's "missed...by moments" , the steam of the "just-boiled >>kettle" >>>>to >>>>>the final images of "the air, still hung with spores of your >>hairspray;/ >>>>>body-heat stowed in the crumpled duvet." >>>>>> The lines: >>>>>> "and in this space we have worked and paid for >>>>>> we have found ourselves and lost each other" >>>>>>stand out for me, and I think will have "cost" something to >write. >>>>>> Its handling of the pentametre looks to me more >>>than "adequately" >>>>>skillful, as does the subtle "st" and "sp" sound-patterning that >runs >>>>>through it >>>>>> >>>>>> It's easy to make a crushing equivalence between the >domestic >>>>and >>>>>the bourgeois, but most of us live our lives in domestic settings >>and >>>>>interiors, and I see no dishonour in their inclusion in a poem. As >>>both a >>>>>love poem and a poem about a relationship in crisis, I think it >has a >>>>>kind of tenderness and integrity. >>>>>> (I doubt, though, that this account will tear Robin away from >his >>>>>admiration for David's post and the "specific points" he has >>>somewhere >>>>>found in his and Mark's dismissals.) >>>>>>Jamie >>>>>> >>>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Mark Weiss >>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:11 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And aren't paid for. >>>>>> >>>>>> At 06:02 PM 2/16/2010, you wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "How's that?" >>>>>> I'd say it did quite well on the nastiness scale. >>>>>> Though it doesn't distinguish itself from 20,000 other bits >>>>>of "criticism" posted every day that cost nothing to write. >>>>>> Jamie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 February, 2010 22:51:43 >>>>>> Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry >>>>>> >>>>>> Shall I try? Probably 20,000 poems a day are posted or >>>published. >>>>>Most are skillful and nothing more. Most take no risks whatsoever. >>>>Most >>>>>want to be liked. Most are crashingly boring. This is one of those. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is, this sort of waste makes it harder to fight >>>through >>>>>to find the good stuff, the stuff that's cost the poet something to >>>write >>>>>and that will cost the reader something to read. >>>>>> >>>>>> How's that? >>>>>> >>>>>> At 05:46 PM 2/16/2010, you wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >It's adequate. Could I be nastier? >>>>>> I dunno, Mark. Could you be? >>>>>> Jamie >>>>>> >>>>>> Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry >>>>>(University of California Press). >>>>>> http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland >>>>>> >>>>>> "Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random >House >>>>>Book of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology >>so >>>>>effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the >United >>>>>States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in >>>>English. >>>>>There is nothing else like it." John Palattella in The >>>>>Nation >>>>>> Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry >>>>>(University of California Press). >>>>>> http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland >>>>>> >>>>>> "Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random House >>>>Book >>>>>of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology so >>>>>effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the >United >>>>>States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in >>>>English. >>>>>There is nothing else like it." John Palattella in The >>>>>Nation >>>>>> >>>>>> -- David Bircumshaw "A window./Big enough to hold screams/ You say are poems" - DMeltzer Website and A Chide's Alphabet http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2696 - Release Date: 02/18/10 19:34:00