In case there's anyone left who isn't fed up with this topic!
I saw this in a helpful review by blogger Gareth Prior of Andrea Brady's Cut From The Rushes:
...The poems are a response to their own times enacted in the language rather than simply communicated through the language.
In this Brady is a lyric poet as much as she is an experimental one (to the extent that either category is useful beyond the world of publishers’ catalogues and review shorthand). Her poems maintain a powerful creative tension between a modernist distrust of meaning and the urgency of direct communication, and in doing so manage to synthesize the best of two very different traditions. ....
http://garethprior.org/the-fault-of-language-andrea-brady/
Don't mean to dig too critically into Gareth's meaning - he seems to be emphasizing the expressive element of "lyrical" here. (as opposed to personal or melodious; though all three are connected, of course) . I share his parenthetical unease about the term, i.e. I never find "lyrical" much use when I'm writing about poetry. Possibly this is because of the view I already expressed that every artefact has the potential to be viewed as expressive, cantabile and personal.
What Gareth does register, as this discussion has done, is a widespread tendency to use lyrical and experimental as contrasted terms. That seems totally unhelpful to me. In most obvious senses Maggie O'Sullivan is far more "lyrical" than Peter Porter. If Andrew Duncan must bear the blame for that, his shoulders are broad enough, but I guess it didn't start with him - I'd like to know the history of this idea.
|