Andrew, I agree with you. It is condescending, and is based on a liberal
humanism advocated by Mathew Arnold to the effect that the poet’s
duty is to “educate” readers. I don’t know about US mainstream poets
in relation to this, but UK ones do tend to see themselves as educators
first and poets second—that’s if we assume they are poets.
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:35:17 +0800, andrew burke
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>The Daily Free Press at Boston University has just published an article
>about Simon Armitage at
>http://www.dailyfreepress.com/simon-armitage-speaks-on-poetry-art-
1.1907598in
>which was reported:
>
> Armitage also drew a distinction between American and British
poetry. In
>the United States, he said, “poetry imploded into the universities.”
>
>“In the States, poetry is campus-based,” he said. “A lot of poets are
housed
>in universities where they are respected and looked after. In the UK, [I
>have a] general feeling modernism didn’t quite catch on. I think in the
UK,
>poets like myself tend to write for the common reader.”
>
>END
>
>That sounds very condescending to 'the common reader' to me. Any
thoughts?
>
>--
>Andrew
>http://hispirits.blogspot.com/
|