You don't mention which commentators you have in mind, David, which makes it
a little difficult for anyone here, myself included, to explain to you their
motives. Have you tried asking those commentators your question directly. If
so, what did they answer? If not, why not?

To pursue the point, what exactly do you mean by "fine poets like Peter Sirr
and Justin Quinn"? What does "like" mean in this context? Somebody *you*
think is like, or somebody *I* think so? Or do you require an answer
specifically in relation to those two poets (in which case the word “like”
is superfluous)?

You praise these two volumes as ground-breaking. I noticed a month or two
back, on an Observer blog if I recall correctly, that you responded to a
list supplied by Billy Mills that Sirr and Quinn had written stuff just as
challenging as anything by Maurice Scully or myself. Ground-breaking and
challenging - sounds not a million miles from “linguistically innovative”,
and your choice of terms seems to me not to avoid the problems associated
with that one. I’d be interested to hear you either explain why your terms
are preferable or, if there is no major difference, could you expand on why
you choose such apparently positivist notions as the best in which to
discuss poetry?

The force of arguments against neglect vary, surely, in the individual
instance. (I’ll state my interest here, having been included in only one
anthology from a commercial poetry publisher - Keith Tuma’s - in over forty
years of publishing.) As with all discussions, though, I find them the more
interesting and potentially convincing the more specific and better informed
the argument and the more generous its context.

To inject some specificities, then . . .

I’ve read little of Quinn’s work (and no, that’s not a euphemism), but I
have been enjoying Sirr’s for a few years now. I’ve also been the recipient
of Peter Sirr’s generosity in the form of a sympathetic and (I thought)
intelligent review of my last collection. So much for prima facie notions of
mutual exclusion.

These false histories irritate me. I was once told by a well-known Irish
poet that New Writers’ Press was merely a “thirties ghetto”. Drink had been
taken, so the terms were loose, but even when I described the history of NWP
before we ever published Coffey or MacGreevey, and told him we brought out
early books by Durcan, Hutchinson, Bardwell, Cronin, Hartnett (three
volumes) and other well-known Irish poets, he stuck with his
pre-conceptions. I was disappointed but scarcely suprised to read, some
years later, an account by our host that night which repeated the original
charge, asserting that NWP had been founded in order to publish the work of
Coffey, et al.

That was by way of complaint against divisive argument which lacks, or
refuses to be corrected by, a factual basis. So, let me angle towards a
question of my own which touches on the terrain of yours. Keith Tuma’s
anthology (see disclaimer above) was largely neglected by the press on this
side of the Atlantic when it came out. Specifically, though its eccentric
inclusions from the small press scene were scrupulously chronicled, no
reviewer I know of praised it for the breadth and generosity of its
sympathies, for the fact that (to revert for purposes of description) it
included Heaney as well as Harwood and Peter Riley, Cobbing followed by
Larkin and Davie, Maggie O’Sullivan beside Paul Muldoon.

Keith’s lack of exclusionary bias seems quite contrary to what I take to be
the implied point of your post, David (though your response may perhaps
clarify that for me): a commentator, even an anthologist of “Irish
innovative poetry” who attended to many not seen primarily as in that
lineage. If I recall correctly, you yourself reviewed Keith’s anthology. I
don’t recall you remarking the generosity and inclusiveness of that gesture.
Did you?

For the record, I’ve attempted to invite Thomas Kinsella and Paul Muldoon to
SoundEye. They, and some other unexpected names, may yet turn up one of
these years. 

And while I’m at it, those interested in SoundEye should note that this
year’s festival will be  held on the week ending Sunday, July 6th. We’re on
very much reduced money this year, so the programming is tough, but we
expect it still to be an excellent event, with a couple of visual art
exhibitions as well as the now-established cabaret, and our usual line-up of
readings and performances. I’d particularly recommend it to those who want
to argue against unwarranted exclusions.

Cheers, Trevor


(P.S. Anyone in the neighbourhood of Cork tonight (Tuesday) is more than
welcome to the Cork launch of my new blockbuster, “What’s in Store”. It'll
be at Callanan's Bar, George's Quay (across river from Holy Trinity Church,
cross Parliament Bridge from South Mall).

Things are due to kick off at about 7 p.m., with no more than about 15
minutes of poetry, but probably a good music jam session in the back later
on, a keg of free Beamish, books on sale (at a discount), and plenty of good
conversation if all goes to plan . . .

There will be a much bigger and more formal launch in Dublin, March 12th,
under the auspices of Poetry Ireland.)



On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:39:58 -0800, david wheatley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I've always wondered why commentators on Irish innovative poetry never seem
to pay attention -- none whatever -- to fine poets like Peter Sirr and
Justin Quinn, to take only two examples, who don't feature in the usual list
of 'ILPs', if that's the correct acronym. Why is this? Bring Everything
(Sirr) and Fuselage (Quinn) are easily two of the most ground-breaking
titles in Irish poetry in the last decade or so.