Liz:
> the language pass. Having grown-up in the shadow of Larkin and the
> Movement, I don't want to go back there."
>
> yes yes yes
I think the problem with dave's original post was that it conjoined two
things -- a drawing-attention to a specific remark by Duffy, and a critique
of her work. Both are worthy of consideration, I'd think, but maybe in
different contexts.
Though to be fair to dave, there +is+ the Larkin connection. This from the
Guardian interview (final URL in my previous post):
<<
The name Larkin often comes up when Duffy is discussed. She is, of course,
in many ways Larkin's antithesis, but they do occupy the same niche in their
respective eras. Duffy is the poet of the multicultural noughties as Larkin
was the bicycle-clipped representative of the dowdy, repressed fifties. The
critic Justin Quinn has noted how many of Duffy's poems echo themes of
Larkin's - you can pair them off: "Larkin's 'Posterity', Duffy's
'Biographer'; 'Ambulances', 'November'; 'Mr Bleaney', 'Room', etc". The
Larkin/Duffy story has taken a surprising turn recently. Duffy's new book
has a long poem set in her girls' school of the 1960s, "The Laughter of
Stafford Girls' High", an allegory of the rise of feminism, sweeping away
dowdy post-war austerity and buttoned-up emotional sterility. And here is a
fat new Larkin book, recently published, Trouble at Willow Gables, girls'
fiction written for private entertainment. Duffy's last word on Larkin: "As
anyone who has the slightest knowledge of my work knows, I have little in
common with Larkin, who was tall, taciturn and thin-on-top, and unlike him I
laugh, nay, sneer, in the face of death. I will concede one point: we are
both lesbian poets."
>>
I suppose what I ought to do now is put my intellectual money where my mouth
flaps, and look at CAD's poems. Normally this would be fairly easy, as my
ex-wife (an admirer of CAD's work) has most of her books. Unfortunately,
Mary's off visiting her parents at the moment. I +could+ ring her, I
suppose, and get permission to break-in and half-inch the poems, but this
seems like a lot of work. For the moment, I'll stick to the one you posted,
the one Gill includes in her anthology, and whatever google throws up.
Cheers,
Robin
PS:
> but I want to acknowledge what Carol Ann is doing and appreciate it for
what
> it is...... there is a strength as well as a weakness in her position -
> which I can see you understand.
I'd be happier if I could get back to the full/original context of the
"interesting words" quotation -- as it stands, I'm reacting +very+
negatively to it. Maybe the original context unteases it more. Currently,
the Heaney/plash bit hangs flapping in the void, and grates on me like a
hangnail. The Guardian, bless its sloppy little heart, doesn't reveal this
in the original interview. Until then, over this particular issue, I
suspect we-all may be simply flailing around. Surely +someone+ on the list
has this, and could post the original?
R2.
|