Beats me! But if were pressed for a better reply I’d say poetry has always been a bitterly contested zone from way before The Dunciad. But as I’m not in favour of spurious divisions, on the thread about the Rebecca Watts article – I think David and Michael both put eloquent arguments for and against it. Without getting into whether she might have done it with a less personalised attack on Hollie McNish, in the end I’m more of the view that if it’s being billed as poetry, it should be looked at as such. And so it doesn’t get a free pass (as in ‘category error’) and an exemption from ‘literary criticism’.

   Just with reference to the Ted Hughes Prize (mentioned on the other thread) which has been won by Kate Tempest and Hollie McNish, I have the impression it was set up to favour poetry that mixes-in other media – spoken voice, radio, visual – so whatever your take on prizes in general, you might consider there’s a point in having one that has looser and more inclusive boundaries, rather than it being some kind of media ‘game’ as I think was suggested.

   (As for Don Paterson, rebuked by Watts for a volte-face on this issue, as editor for Picador there may well be commercial reasons regarding the survival of a list for favouring at least some poetry that will sell, but my impression of him is that he does state his positions forcefully but then, like all of us, is at liberty to change his mind and state a different view. It’s presumptuous to claim someone changing their mind is dishonest. Otherwise what would be the point of debate? I’m pretty sure, for example, his views on ‘avant-garde’ poetry have altered since his notorious introduction to The New British Poetry. I have a number of strong objections to his ideas about translating poetry – and have expressed them in print – but I’m still grateful for the fact that he articulates them so forcefully and along the way offers quite a few acute observations about the art.)

 

Jamie

---