 |
 |
Oh Peter, you so frustrating. Honestly.... you don't like the word 'centre', who cares, I'll use whatever word you like. 'Financial' - yea, that has a bearing, it's part of it. So what? And I never said NEGLECTED, I said 'ignored' by the mainstream. Sometimes I think you just want to disagree for the sake of it. But you seem to be taking my little list a bit too close to heart - I didn't give it considered thought, but that's not the point, it was meant to initiate discussion. Fisher (Roy that is), 'not neglected ON ANY TERMS'. Rubbish, if you don;t mind me saying. 'Six or so are appreciated in niches' - of course they're appreciated in 'niches' - that's the point, surely? I would love to know who the 6 or so are who you think write badly - I've got a fair idea who a couple might be. I might agree with you about a couple. Ha! You say: "There are four including me (Oliver, James, Chaloner) who were perhaps sidelined because we were "Cambridge" but didn't enroll ourselves wholly in the Prynne brigade and so fell between stools. I think I'm the least neglected of these. " Yes, I know, I agree, you have mentioned a reason. Other things have reasons too. But from your additions to the list I would never include Halsey, Sutherland, Finlay (or his dad) Cheek, Raworth or Brady because on many levels the reasons why their work is beyond the mainstream are pretty obvious (perhaps you misunderstood the reason for my list). I did consider putting MacSweeney, Joyce, Clark and Denise Riley there. Yes, OK, put them there, though each is slightly more problematic. Cheers - excuse the frustration - Now I am off Tim A. On 10 Sep 2010, at 12:54, Peter Riley wrote: > Tim, > > What I can't take is the use of a term like "centre". It's your > geometry that's wrong. Those people are not at the centre of British > poetry in any sense except the financial. > > This is how it works. Ms Oswald has a slim first volume published by > Faber. Immediately gold is showered upon her in enormous quantities, > she is invited everywhere, articles and lectures on her sprout up > everywhere, her picture is all over the tabloids, she is queen of > British poetry. I contend that this is not actually because of what > she writes, which as I said doesn't fit your categories. Probably > the most significant factor is being published by Faber, which sets > you up for the big prizes without it being exactly automatic. Once > you've got one prize you get all the others because the judges can't > judge poetry at all and so they take the easy course of following > suit. You could look upon Oswald's triumph as a good sign if you > wanted to, a sign of a move towards a more language-conscious, more > subtle, and socially and ecologically aware poetry, as if the > public created by this industry is getting tired of the facility it > normally gets. The only thing I think is wrong about it is the > disproportion, and the abandoning of the principle that the highest > reward belongs, as Aristotle said, to a life's work, rather than a > youthful spurt. > > This isn't even an industry. It's a small market sector which can > take advantage of automatic institutional endorsement for its > products. It's on the fringe of British poetry. It only promotes > about half a dozen poets, and pushes their sales up into the tens of > thousands. It can't do more than this because claims of exceptional > genius are essential to the publicity. Below this is a large body of > experienced poets who cannot be called neglected -- their sales are > good, their names are known, they get invitations, festschriften, > academic articles, they judge competitions (if they want to). They > just don't get the jackpot. This certainly includes Roy Fisher and > many other poets good bad and indifferent. Lee Harwood's Collected > Poems is Shearsman's best selling book. These quite successful poets > don't all belong in the same market, are not necessarily in > competition with each other, but can occupy self-created niches in > which they have strong followings, as with J.H.Prynne. > > I just saw your new list of neglected British poets and I think of > the twenty or so: > 5 are not neglected on any terms (Fisher etc) > 3 or 4 are "doing well" (e.g. Corcoran) > Six or so are appreciated in niches > Six or so are neglected and deserve to be either because they write > in a way which very few people will ever be able to read, or because > they write very badly. > There are four including me (Oliver, James, Chaloner) who were > perhaps sidelined because we were "Cambridge" but didn't enroll > ourselves wholly in the Prynne brigade and so fell between stools. I > think I'm the least neglected of these. > > Some poets you don't mention who cannot be considered neglected: > Alan Halsey, Keston Sutherland, Alec Finlay and his dad, Cris Cheek, > Barry MacSweeney, Trevor Joyce, Tom Raworth, Thomas A. Clark, Denise > Riley, Andrea Brady... > > > But Tim, you talk all the time as if you and they have had the door > of the Grosvenor Hotel slammed in your face. Who wants to go in > there and sit with a small group of very middle-class effetes > drinking iguana soup? > > This is a terrible topic, we should never have started on it. > > Just keep on writing the stuff will you. > > Peter > > > > On 10 Sep 2010, at 10:57, Tim Allen wrote: > > Peter, > > I have to say a similar thing to you here as I have to Jeffrey. For > heaven's sake, I completely agree with what you say below. I know > full well that the 'mainstream' is not all of one. I've talked > elsewhere about this change in the breadth of mainstream poetry > through the 00's, and yes, in relation to this I have mentioned > Oswald and Paterson. And of course there are poets who's designation > by the mainstream as not being 'one of them' has always been > difficult to fathom logically (though not tribally etc). I've talked > before about this in relation to Lee Harwood for example, and Doug > Oliver - just two examples (oh and of course, Roy Fisher) - there > are plenty of others. It just so happens that in this case, in this > thread, I was talking about a particular quality (or anti-quality) > that has been very important for a whole mass, of a certain type, of > mainstream poems. And this is something you are clearly aware of > too. And yes, of course there are younger poets who cannot be > defined by these categories, - I would agree, Zoe and Nathan are > excellent examples. But........ > > (always a but) .... but I could give you an explanation as to why > the brilliant poetry, for example, of Lee Harwood and Roy Fisher has > been so neglected by the centre in favour of its own thin product. > Or, are there no reasons for this, is it just chance? Of course > there are REASONS. Why is it that attempts to talk about those > reasons gets such shifty responses? From both sides! > > Cheers > > Tim A. > > > On 9 Sep 2010, at 19:20, Peter Riley wrote: > >> As to the other matter, that mainstream has a different philosophy >> of writing because of its adherence to "subject" and >> "transparency", I think that's only diagrammatically true. I mean >> it's true in principle as a dichotomisation which is part of the >> definition of modernism, more in criticism than in poems, and it's >> true at the (fortunately quite few) far extremes. But there are so >> many exceptions and ifs and buts that I don't think it can be used >> to maintain the existence of a total divide in English language >> poetry. It's not, for instance, true of Alice Oswald, or Pauline >> Stainer, it's not consistently true of Don Paterson or Roy Fisher >> or even Seamus Heaney (whose "subject" can phase into "occasion"). >> But it surely is true of Thomas A. ClarkBritish. And I keep seeing >> the work of younger poets who just can't be defined by these >> categories -- Sasha Aurora Ahkat, Zoe Skoulding, Nathan Thompson... > > > =