 |
 |
Often the difference is simply STANCE rather than SUBSTANCE. There is room for everyone if they are hip cool dudes or those who could be termed conservative fogeys. Having met and hosted and known poets from many nations over several decades many impressed me while others left me cold on a personal level. The surprise is that many like the late Peter Porter are derided by the hipsters but he showed huge respect as did Gavin Ewart. Others who are lauded by the avant-garde on reflection were merely huge egos claiming poverty but well aware where the funding is found as well as academic posts. A great trick is to feign a left-wing stance then use that as a network platform. Poetry at a middle-rank level can yield a good income with creative writing courses and tours often on an international level. The income issue is rarely addressed though covered by Charles Bernstein in an essay in ''Content's Dream'' and by James Kelman in an interview with a Scottish magazine over two decades ago or more where Kelman questioned cashflow in modern fiction being ignored. In David Antin's ''tuning'' he saw Georgia O' Keeffe as a superb student of the stock market from New Mexico. Georgia of course on the surface projected a very cool detached image which played well with her acolytes. Peter Riley is a poet who has a lot of honest views and Tim Allen I also respect on all levels. Neither project cool dude personas with open field thinking their strength. I noted Simon Armitage read locally a few weeks ago but did not attend his reading. I now would see no reason not to read him and I will do so asap. Tom Raworth I have paid far more attention to but that was due to being taken in by the idea that non- mainstream offered more in a poetic context. I will take a look at Simon's work and see what I may be missing? We must never close the stable door in poetry as one never knows who might need shelter and a solid read! Very interesting debate with some wonderful contributions. Cheers Sean -----Original Message----- From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> To: BRITISH-IRISH-POETS <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:11 pm Subject: Re: baBoom Peter: It's tempting to agree with this. But I don't know that anyone reads innocently--your own deep immersion in modernism, for instance, has trained your ability to read certain texts. Hard to imagine anybody coming upon Prynne with no knowledge of what came before. To that extent modernism and a great deal else "inhabits the present tense of reading a poem." -----Original Message----- From: Peter Riley Sent: Dec 8, 2013 3:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: baBoom O Mr Allen, I don't think I said anything resembling what you describe. And at this point he presses the send switch which must be because of the mulled wine, though I thought the mulling removed the alcohol. Anyway what I said amounted to: If you want Modernism you can have it. I find its usefulness mainly historical rather than something that inhabits the present tense of reading a poem. I know people do read poetry going "Yummy some more modernism just what I want" but I think that's a reading that inhibits perception of what's going on in the poem. But anyone who wants it can have it: I don't very much but sometimes (e.g. in reviewing) use it as a shorthand of some kind or to get over a historical digression. Whether it exists or not is not the point. It exists for those who insist that it exist. I don't insist and for me it is a bit of a ghost. I'm glad to have your remarks on Armstrong or whatever he's called, and the others. I once read a short poem by the Duffy in a Roy Fisher festschrift and thought it was charming. I don't know why you refer to them as "mainstream" but I suppose you think it exists, and if you and others believe that hard enough it will exist, that's the way words work. I don't complain about that, I just wouldn't feel confident in employing the category myself. But the thing is, nisi carborundum-- don't let them grind you down. Or, take it easy-- "She bid me take life easy, as the leaf grows on the tree, But I was young and foolish, and with her would not agree." I was too, once, young and foolish. I thought I was a member of an avant-garde which was going to change everything. I'm still trying to catch up with the reading I was prevented from doing by this allegiance. Peter On 8 Dec 2013, at 15:52, Tim Allen wrote: Blooming heck Peter. i can't handle it. In what you say below first modernism doesn't exist then it does then it doesn't then it does then in doesn't.