Dear Geraldine

Thanks so much for yours (kissing and making up - please).

To me, your "electricity" is it.

I think it is very difficult to have an identifiable measure for all 
poetries - and near impossible when considering sound/concrete/performance 
poetry. The frame, the medium is different and is not the page - but relates 
entirely to the page. Indeed, everything relates to the page - drama, visual 
art, a musical score.

I too get that electricity from John Clare's poetry, from Shelley's 'Ode To 
The West Wind' and thousands more. I get that electricity too from Aborigine 
'creationist chants,' etc.

Perhaps I'm looking at this entirely the wrong way round: rather than 
good/bad perhaps  the essentials are - building participation and thereby 
audience? I don't imagine the inspiring poets of the 60s and early 70s had a 
criteria as to 'good' poetry, 'bad' poetry - they did it and created 
interactive audiences around 'doing it.'

'Doing it' doesn't negate previous work - the classics et al - but could 
provide a way forward.

The reason why the Quill Writing Group is the fastest growing writing group 
in the UK is a) they're doing it for themselves and b) writers/artists like 
myself have never been judgemental about their work - though I've personally 
thrown a hundred writing options at them!! While I totally understand your 
mention of 'inhouse' publication with a specific group, my task here is to 
let them find the 'electricity.' I have that faith.

When - not if - the lightning strikes, we all gain.

Electricity is it.

All best wishes, Rupert


>
>
> Dear Rupert,
> This is very sweet of you and I think we should all now kiss and make up - 
> metaphorically speaking of course.  These hiccups happen. I have them all 
> the time so I think you're allowed the odd one now and again. But this is 
> much appreciated.
>
> And not for one moment should you apologise for the good/bad poetry 
> debate, in fact you get a gold star from bringing that up. That's 
> something that needs talking about. In fact I think Peter agreed with you 
> on this point whereas I don't so it's a debate that doesn't have clearly 
> defined enemies or allies which makes it much more meaty.
>
> I've certainly been persuaded by some of the arguments that good/bad is 
> far too loaded with moral rectitude and in that sense I can actually find 
> myself agreeing with your statement.  But if we're saying that there is no 
> difference whatsoever in the standard (the electricity?) of writing 
> between, let's say,  my hospice patients (some of whom became close 
> personal friends before departing for the Pearly Gates) and, let's say, 
> John Donne or Marianne Moore then I absolutely 100 per cent disagree.  If 
> I'd thought any of my hospice patients had come anywhere near these 
> writers I'd have gone out my way to try and get their stuff published or 
> publish them myself. But they didn't.  I published them 'in house' at the 
> hospice for their friends and families. I still have all the publications. 
> They are amongst my most treasured possessions but that's because of my 
> memories not because their writing was worth preserving for posterity - to 
> be honest quite a lot of it was atrocious by anyone's standards.
>
> Tweet-tweet,
> Geraldine
>