 |
 |
Hi Tim Yes I agree about the crossing over of issues. I too simplified what I thought of Don Paterson's 2004 piece because I also felt there were some really good and interesting things in it but I didn't want to complicate matters and I'm glad to have the opportunity to acknowledge it now though I won't go down that byway. And of course I concede that my "category mistake" comment re Rebecca Watts's essay oversimplified the reality, I hope in pursuit of clear exposition though I couldn't easily defend myself if someone called it a cheap shot. And I certainly know what you mean about the all-too-familiar inverted snobbery move which I think many of us will painfully recognize as a dishonest tactic for dismissing writing that tries to do new (or at any rate, different) things. Perhaps we can agree on making a distinction between the young unliterary writers themselves and the tactical deployment of them as a weapon of reproof in the hands of older and more hardened players on the poetry scene. Ultimately our aspirations and those of Rupi Kaur etc are the same -- probably every poet's aspirations, for that matter --- : to have our writing considered for what it is and not as a botched attempt to be something it isn't and never attempted to be. Re the final paragraph, I said more about this in my reply to David B, it is probably going off at a tangent but I wanted to argue against prejudging poetry just on the basis that it comes out of something mundane but prevalent like social media. I mentioned the gurlesque poets and might perhaps have mentioned flarf --- poetry is always revisiting the popular subliterary substrates, themselves in a constant flux of change, and this doesn't preclude value as such, it just may not be the same values that poetry communities have sought in the past. And sometimes, I don't claim always, this can ask questions that shed light on existing poetries. I've quickly read some Melissa Lee-Houghton poems and yes, I think they too could exemplify what I mean. Cheers! >>>>It has become pretty clear talking to others that the problem with much of the response to the review has been caused by the crossing over of different issues that arise from/in it. It is a long review and says quite a lot. I know I homed in on where I saw her discussing an issue which has been a concern of mine for years concerning the mechanics of inverted snobbery and how they function in the poetry scene. I ignored somewhat the reasons for her saying what she said even though I could tell they would not be my own and were coming from a different place. Of course I noted the Paterson thing and nearly said something about it but thought it would confuse the issue - Paterson always confuses the issue - in some ways I think he is an arse and the change of mind that Watt's talks about in the review I find typical of him - I can never decide if he really doesn't know what he is talking about (though he thinks he does) or if he is just a literary wide-boy whose motivations get tangled. I agree with everything you say in your first paragraph, but in your second paragraph, leaving aside the Paterson thing, I am very much in two minds about the 'category mistake' question. Yes and no. It's not black and white. It is not black and white because of the way it relates to the inverted snobbery of some mainstream commentators and their disingenuous lauding of what I suspect they don't actually rate at all. I don't trust them. I don't for one moment imagine that this 'getting down with the kids (well worn cliche I know) is anything to do with a sudden enthusiasm for the 'variousness' of the art. I suppose we could say that it is down to a far too conscious post-modern levelling exercise, one in the abstract in other words, where the parameters of judgement are not the same as those espoused by Watts, but I'm not even sure if I believe that. And if those 'parameters of judgement' are in fact the disavowal of the standards of Watts then she has every right to counter them, whatever we think about it. But I don't think they are that, I think they are a convenience, a suspension of the rules for the moment, for some other purpose, while in other cases the rules and standards can be applied with vigour but only a dollop of honesty, as the 'category mistake' is wilfully employed when talking about the avant stuff they don't like. Of course your saying "Applying traditional values and judgments of high-art verse to the avowedly unliterary and popular poetry with which she's dealing in this essay is such a pointless exercise" is right in the general sense of comparative criticism, the acknowledgment that these are different categories, but in the context of this poetry's reception doesn't it make sense? Haven't the categories already been melded. They want their cake and they want to eat it. I agree with your final paragraph and share its general take on things but I am not sure how it relates. As I have tried to say in a previous post I have absolutely nothing against McNish or Kaur etc, and the fact that their work does nothing for me personally has nothing to do with the fact that that if others find it of value then that is to the good. Nevertheless if Watts sees it as being related to a bigger problem then she is right to talk about it. For myself I honestly don't know, or at least I don't know what to say with regard to positives and negatives. I have myself made a connection between a certain type of poetry which I think grew out of the use of social media, that is like a hyper-personalism, a confessional and therapeutic poetry come of age so to speak (I mentioned it in my academia essay) but I noticed this in work that I liked a lot and was positive about (Melissa Lee-Houghton is a good example) and I would be very surprised if this issue was not related to it. This is why the whole thing is confusing and explains the mixed feelings of many who have responded. Has there been another article which in recent years has had such a response? I don't think so. Cheers