Jamie, I agree it may have seemed that my comment about 200 years 
of UK poetry hasn't been demonstrated with examples, but as you 
acknowledge it is a "prevailing tendency" and as such difficult to 
particularise without a caricature resulting. 

As far as I can tell, most of the responses from people on this forum 
(apart from Tim's) have been fairly conservative ones, despite any of 
their personal identification or not with poetry that is not conservative. 
I am particularly surprised at Peter's response in this respect, and also 
by Chris's. Perhaps, it just shows the extent of the conservative 
influence (acknoweledged or otherwise) even in the non-mainstream.







On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:30:25 +0100, Jamie McKendrick 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Jeff,
>  I don't think that your point that "the mainstream always want proof 
from 
>dissenters but seldom back their own claims up" is entirely upheld by 
this 
>discussion. Again, it might help to give a few examples. You've 
spoken about 
>a prevailing tendency in 200 years of British poetry, and quite a lot of 
>people who I wouldn't imagine were affiliated with the mainstream 
have asked 
>you for some proof. And quite a few of us have given examples which 
might 
>refute it.
>   Anyway, thanks for making Chap 4 available. I'll read it properly 
when I 
>have a chance and try to make some comments. Though from what 
I've already 
>read in it I think I share Alison's distaste for "the reductionism of 
>labels, and of polarizing argument" - though somtimes polarizing 
argument 
>can have a useful function. (Is there a confusion of two different 
>anthologies in Alison's criticism between Motion & Morrison's and 
some other 
>that "seems to stop after 1945"?)
>    I'm also astonished at the centrality of Hobsbaum in C20th poetry 
for 
>Jeff (but I've already expressed myself on this point.) As regards this 
I 
>don't quite understand David's elliptical post - maybe my fault.
>Best wishes,
>Jamie
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:37 AM
>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since 
Wordsworth?"
>
>
>“You should know yourself that in the backrooms and pubs and cafes
>literary inclined people who are into poetry express all kinds of 
extreme
>and sweeping views to each other. Most of them do not put these 
views
>and opinions into print, their comments just become part of the more
>vague field of discourse that lies behind much of the stuff spouted by
>published critics.”
>
>“most of the people who hold these views don't put what they say into
>print, or if they do they generalise away from 'names', which leaves
>those of us who do put our opinions into print looking nasty, and 
worse,
>we rarely get backed up openly by those who we know share the same
>views. And a lot of the time their views are even more extreme and
>entrenched.”
>
>Tim, these are very perceptive and valuable points, which are always
>overlooked. The mainstream always want proof from dissenters but
>seldom back their own claims up.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:02:21 +0100, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>No Jamie, I am certainly not talking about that quite obvious higher
>>percentage of poor poetry to good poetry at any one time etc, and I
>>don't think David B. is either. I wish I was. I really do wish it was
>>as simple as that. But I'm not silly - of course the phenomenon you
>>talk of exists, it just doesn't happen to matter all that much. In
>>some ways I am not talking about 'quality' at all, I am talking about
>>the elevation of particular 'qualities' at the expense of others - the
>>poetic ideology that turns mediocrity into a value, something like 
that.
>>
>>I've been thinking, talking and writing about this stuff for years,
>>and yes, it wears you down. I've tried to ignore it, but then
>>something like this discussion on Wordsworth brings it back. But one
>>thing I have always tried to do is not simply shunt the problem aside
>>as one of taste. Very tempting to do that, but I refuse.
>>
>>You should know yourself that in the backrooms and pubs and cafes
>>literary inclined people who are into poetry express all kinds of
>>extreme and sweeping views to each other. Most of them do not put
>>these views and opinions into print, their comments just become part
>>of the more vague field of discourse that lies behind much of the
>>stuff spouted by published critics. I know intelligent and well read
>>people who think high profile poets A and B are just poor poets, and 
I
>>know intelligent and well read people who think they are very good
>>poets. This situation is not surprising, and not unusual, even though
>>the polarization does seem a little too extreme and a little too wide-
>>spread to be normal. However, I've experienced a problem with this,
>>because most of the people who hold these views don't put what 
they
>>say into print, or if they do they generalise away from 'names', which
>>leaves those of us who do put our opinions into print looking nasty,
>>and worse, we rarely get backed up openly by those who we know
>share
>>the same views. And a lot of the time their views are even more
>>extreme and entrenched. I for example happen to think that poets A
>and
>>B are talented and good at what they do, even though I have a big
>>problem with what they do, but I get the raised eyebrow for even
>>saying that.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Tim A.
>>
>>On 28 Aug 2009, at 15:21, Jamie McKendrick wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't this, or something like it, be the experience of poets and
>>> readers in any age after books are published in quantity. For Pope
>>> there's a mire of dunces out there, and for the Romantics poets
>>> would it be any different? Who, apart from scholars, reads much of
>>> the poetry of Tom Moore and Walter Scott, two of the most read
>poets
>>> of that age? Time and received opinion have mostly weeded out 
the
>>> Dennises and Brewalls from what all but a few of us bother to 
read.
>>> You referred earlier, Tim, to "the mediocre and dull" who are held
>>> up for our admiration: we may have different ideas about who they
>>> are and who they aren't, but are any of us likely to find more than
>>> five or six contemporaries whose poems we really admire? About 
the
>>> rest, whom we don't, any holding up of their virtues is going to
>>> look like a waste of space.
>>> (This obvious point isn't offered compacently - I can see the 
danger
>>> of things having been effectively weeded out before any but a few
>>> have had the chance to read them.)
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Jamie
>>
>>