Dennis O'Driscoll asks Heaney, "How important is experiment to you?"
To which Heaney replies, "Each poem is an experiment. The experimental
poetry thing is not my thing. It's a programme of the avant garde;
basically a refusal of the kind of poetry I write."
The idea that every poem is an experiment is a cliche, almost
meaningless, but that aside, what about this notion of Heaney's that
the avant garde is founded on a refusal to write the kind of poetry he
writes? Is this true? Now if he said that such a refusal was a
byproduct of an avant garde programme, that would make more sense.
This whole thing is very strange. I've never really been interested in
writing the way Heaney does. I read him and I admire, but it doesn't
enthuse, it doesn't make me want to be creative. I still don't
understand this: how can he be so good and yet fail to interest me
much? I used to think this was all down to me, some sort of personal
lack, until I realised that there were others out there who felt the
same way - a minority, of course, but a minority with a label.
This is not an attack or criticism of Heaney. It is just a question. I
do, kind of, know some of the answer, but I want to know what others
on this list think.
Tim A.
|