 |
 |
Hi Drew, Fine about the informality, but in the context of the preceding narrative you can see how easily the phrase would suggest dismissal. As for Holbrook, I hadn’t even heard of his book which I now see was published in 1962 - so more than 55 years back - old history indeed. As he was a Fellow of Queen’s and of Downing College Cambridge, and not a poet, it might make more sense to lay the blame on English Dept academics than mainstream poets? However, without much evidence to support me, I would assume he was especially fitted for the grey disapproval of the Movement, which could well be seen as a reaction to his popularity. Thomas was perhaps the last genuinely popular poet in Britain (if popular can be freed up from its negative connotations) and interestingly continues to be so. He belongs to everyone - as do all poets! - so recent attempts to make him an avant-garde poet avant la lettre seem at an odd remove from the history as I recall it. Were there no avant poets of the time or indeed later who were averse to Thomas? I still think the special resentment occasioned by Faber is based on a hierarchical model that no longer applies and hasn’t done perhaps since the days of Monteith. After him, Faber had Raine who essentially shut the doors on the next generation of British poets with the exception of Michael Hofmann (for which he deserves only minor credit as he was generally acclaimed before publication). I would say Hofmann is one of the finest poets of my generation and one who certainly ‘matters’ to me. To be fair Raine deserves credit for taking on Christopher Logue’s brilliant Homeric enterprise (if I’m right about that). Then, pursuing the Faber theme, Reid, who might have been expected to follow the Raine line opened the doors a lot wider, with among others Armitage, Paterson, Riordan, all fine poets and not in the least identikit in my view. Keegan had his own tastes: Alice Oswald, another poet who has occasioned a great deal of interest and popular admiration, again in my view justly. Though far less conspicuous I have a high regard for Eilean Ni Chuilleanain (no accents on this) from his time. It’s early days for Hollis, the present incumbent, but as far as I can see there’s been a fair amount of excitement around Sam Riviere and the newly assumed Hannah Sullivan and Sophie Collins. But really the whole notion of some kind of team one has to support or defend is utterly alien to me, for the reasons I’ve given. As for bookshops, my favourite Barcelona one is full of Carcanet volumes and not a single Faber poet - maybe the editor’s Spanish connections? But in Britain, apart from a few ‘best sellers’ on the list I haven’t noticed any great prevalence of Faber over Bloodaxe or Carcanet or Picador. This is getting long and boring and too bureaucratic, but I’m sure you can follow what I’m saying. Jamie > On 31 Jan 2018, at 08:43, Drew Milne <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Jamie, > > 'that stuff' wasn't meant to be disdainful, just an informal register. > > I think it is obvious why Faber excites ire, because of its historic list and position of cultural significance, not least in bookshops. My question was a serious one, who are the Faber poets that matter to people who read Faber's recent books over the last ten to fifteen years? > > Drew > > ps. if anyone wants evidence of the brutal demolition and denigration of Dylan Thomas, then check out David Holbrook's Llareggub revisted: Dylan Thomas and the state of modern poetry.