 |
 |
Are you in Spain yet Peter? Is it safe to come out? Well, my original comment/reaction was immediate and kneejerk, I admit that - and yes, angry, no doubt about it. I think there is a place for visceral reactions. My second comment, the 'slush compacted into just the right form' one was a descriptive stage further, but yes, I agree, hardly an 'argued opinion' as you put it. It wasn't meant to be. There are two things however in your post below that are not true -1. I do not write things like that and then expect to be treated as an authority (this subject needs a separate post to answer really) and 2 I certainly do not expect any poetry that is not 'experimental' to be dishonest. That is ridiculous. There is an issue with the authentic/artificial polarity that is relevant when talking about different poetics but not in this blunt way. Why, you ask, can I not find a way of getting the congeniality of my own experimental writings into my view of the poetry world. Well thanks for the word 'congeniality', I like that, but I do not actually consider my work to be experimental, even though it gets called that sometimes. But as i've said here innumerable times before, I don't have an issue with it. The answer to the question though is obviously that writing poetry and commenting on the scene are two entirely different exercises. Not sure about trying to back-up my negative reaction with reference to specific detail, particularly about the poem you mention. I know the lady, or used to, back in the south-west, and have had clashes with her in the past, each down to my expressing certain opinions. But I'll think about it. Have a good time in Spain - thunder and lightning downpours there I think. Cheers Tim Off to get the grandkids from school now On 6 Oct 2015, at 12:34, Peter Riley wrote: > The trouble is, Tim, that faced with what you call "mainstream" success you get so angry that you don't articulate any argument at all, you don't criticise, you just shout "Bad! Bad! Bad! Take it away!" as if you're talking about rotten courgettes. You offer nothing but an unargued opinion which you expect to be treated as authority. What's "clear" about the sentence below except that you're angry? Nothing is clear at all. What is "slush" in this context? Recognizable feelings of any kind? Could you perhaps identify one single "cliché"? Why should all these quite different poems be assumed to be purposefully written in order to gain prizes? Where does the insincerity show? It seems that as far as you're concerned any poetry writing not experimental is dishonest, with some poems honorably excepted for undeclared reasons. Couldn't you find a way of getting the congeniality of your own experimental writings into your view of the poetry world? > > I liked the blue hen poem, which you must think a piece of slush artificially concocted to appeal to judges who can't tell a real poem from a potato. I thought it was a well crafted lyric. The names of the judges are given in all the publicity. They are not frauds. > > These elitist diatribes against popular poetry have been going on, in my experience, for at least half a century, without making any progress towards considered thought (the ex-Cambridge mob do at least have ideas in their heads when they demolish poets) nor showing any relenting in dismissing the bulk of the poetry reading population as ignorant fools with no right to an opinion. > > I'm going to Spain now, as I usually do when arguments gets started. > > > kisses/ PR > > > > > On 6 Oct 2015, at 11:29, Tim Allen wrote: > > OK, let's be clearer - Apart from Andrew Elliott's poem the other 4 are poetic slush, shaped and compacted into just the right form to appeal to the 'OO' and the 'AH' of a critical abyss that can't tell the difference between a cliche and a box of potatoes (don't know why I said potatoes). >