<I'm not saying, Geraldine, your anger against WMA is not justified. I'm 
saying I don't really know who or what WMA is but I'm learning and please 
don't shout at me meanwhile.>


So sorry Mairead - wasn't meaning to shout  - but the case I was making was 
very specific which is why I went into so much detail. So to have you and 
Susan read it as some kind of a rejection of mulitculural Britain took me 
aback. (The Modest Proposal by the way was by Paul not by me -  I merely 
thought it obvious that it was Big Brother that Paul was taking the mickey 
out of not the ethnic community - it obviously doesn't travel).

< If I start talking about RISCA
(Rhode Island State Council on the Arts) to you, I won't expect you toshare 
in my contumely .>

O.K. and I wouldn't jump in if I didn't understand the context (it's a full 
time job keeping up with what our own funding bodies are up to) but I 
certainly wouldn't object to you talking about it if you thought it was 
going to effect your individual rights to free expression and the freedom to 
publish only what you think is of artistic value.  If that is what was a 
stake I would support your cause.



<I don't agree with your last point: "You surely can't get less racist
than saying we don't give a damn who or what you are." ... So I'd be happier 
saying: "I care a great deal who and what you are.  Tell me about it.  I'll 
do my best to listen."  I think it's damned hard to learn about someone 
else's difference because our own gloss, our own inherited way of looking at 
things, goes on top of everything.>

Not meaning to chop out your reference to your research Mairead but if I 
could just take you up on this (very quietly of course!!!).  The problem 
with this is that it's about people in general rather than people writing 
poetry that excites you.

We get a lot of unsolicited m/s's dropping through the letter box and most 
of it is truly awful - by anyones standards but their own. It's quite 
evident that these people don't read poetry (they certainly haven't read the 
poetry that West House Books publishes because if they had they wouldn't 
waste a stamp sending it to us).   Now to say I care about these people 
would be a lie.  I don't.  I don't give a toss about the woman who sent us a 
swathe of utter dross this week telling us she intended to become a 
household name!  Sorry but she can feck orf.  Apart from being  totally 
unrealistic -  our poet laureates don't even become household names - it's 
enough to make you weep with the pettiness of such ambition.  However, I 
might care about some of these people if I met them down the pub and they 
turned out to be nice people -  which I'm sure most of them are.  I care 
about people socially but that is very distinct from my reaction to a poem. 
Now if one day someone does send us some poetry that blows the tops off my 
boiled eggs then I will care very much about that person and I'll want to 
know everything about them.  And if that person turns out to be a young 
ethnic guy or gal nodody would be happier than me.  But I just don't think 
WMA is going to make this a possiblily by there half-baked badly thought out 
policy.


Cheers,
Geraldine







Mairead



On 8/22/05, Geraldine Monk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well I can certainly see a colossal breakdown in cultural difference if
> Paul's 'identikit' proposal wasn't read with that deep and savage irony 
> that
> passes for humour in England.  That's how I read because that's how it was
> intended.  And I also second Paul's second post.
>
> Anyway with all this bafflement going on I can only conclude that the
> subtleties and ultimate common sense of my argument has been totally lost
> and I'm at a loss how to say it more plainly.  I have said in almost every
> post on this matter that I fully champion anything that will encourage
> ANYONE including the young the ethnic the minorities,  into writing 
> poetry.
> Why is this baffling?
>
> HOWEVER my argument is and has been from the start that there are sensible
> ways to go about this and there are brainless ways to go about this.  And 
> a
> blanket diktat from WMA that ALL presses, no matter what their aesthetic,
> should now include young ethnic poets is one of the more brainless
> suggestions.  THIS IS NOT A RACIST COMMENT!!!!!!  Now if you really take 
> on
> board what I have said in past letters, like holding workshops, or the WMA
> funding a magazine with specific intent to highlight young talented 
> writers,
> or targeting presses that may best accommodate specific writers then 
> that's
> constructive.  But their proposal isn't constructive it's dumb and it's
> sinister.
>
> You don't believe me? O.K. Here's some more of the infamous conversation
> Glenn had the WBA.
>
> Glenn 'My only criteria for publishing something is literary quality'
>
> WMA person:  Literary quality is of no interest to me whatsoever'
>
> Straight from the horses mouth!  In other words they don't give a shit if
> your young ethic poet is a load a crap as long as your poet is young and
> ethnic.  Now, as writers, if you don't find that outrageous, from a body
> purporting to support the arts , I think you should. It's  an abomination.
> It's also a staggering display of patronising, condescension towards young
> ethnic minorities that really could be construed as racist.
>
> Both Mairead and Susan seem to imply in their letters that they love
> cultural integration and Paul and I are against it.  Nothing could be
> further from the truth.  But we don't live in just a culturally integrated
> society we also live in a multicultural society and the two are not the 
> same
> thing.
>
> O.K. now, I'll give you an example of what I mean.  Sheffield Poetry
> International.   Despite the fact that the first 3 readings where held in 
> a
> multicultural cafe which is heavily frequented by all types, ages and 
> races
> during the day not one member of the audience (and we got big audiences) 
> was
> of black or ethnic origins - not even for our black writer.   Why?  Search
> me.  It was disappointing but was it our fault?  I don't know what more we
> could have done to make everyone welcome.   Now that's multiculturalism 
> for
> you - people follow their own (not the indigenous) culture.  And why 
> should
> they like or listen to 'experimental' poetry fer god's sake!!  (I'd like 
> to
> convince them they'd like to do so but I'd like to do that to the 
> community
> as a whole - it isn't that easy).
>
> And saying it isn't that easy brings me to my last point.  Mairead, yes we
> do have arts council's here and it's necessary because we don't have the
> university set-up that you have in America for creative writers nor the
> prize and awards for people of our ilk (they're strictly 'only mainstream
> poets from a small handful of accredited presses need apply'. )
>
> So the Art's Council is the only way most writers have of financing 
> projects
> - or going out to work and ploughing your own money into projects which
> unless you're on a good screw is very limiting.  And that brings me to my
> very very last point.  There is a striking difference between you/Susan 
> and
> me/Paul/Glenn and that is that you both work in universities with a flow 
> of
> bright young things of all ethnic backgrounds passing through  and we 
> don't.
>  We live in the English provinces and go out to get the morning paper or 
> go
> to work and probably met the same people day in day out without flux or
> influx.  We just don't have that ease of access that you have.  We come
> across other poets through magazines and other grapevine outlets.  And we
> don't care or even ask what age, colour, sex, background they're from if 
> we
> like their stuff we like it.  That's how most small presses in England 
> run.
> They run for the love of poetry.   Now you  may think this is wrong but we
> are poets not a race relations officers.  You surely can't get less racist
> than saying we don't give a damn who or what you are.
>
> Cheers,
> Geraldine
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Geraldine Monk
> www.westhousebooks.co.uk