JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Archives


BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Archives

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Archives


BRITISH-IRISH-POETS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Home

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Home

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS  1998

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS 1998

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Poetry / Politics

From:

[log in to unmask] (Peter Riley)

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask] (Peter Riley)

Date:

Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:13:34 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

These are just some disconnected rough notes. In them I'm not thinking of
any one's poetry in particular.



Surely when Confucius spoke of the need to withdraw from politics he was
speaking of a very different situation, he was speaking of or to poets who
were themselves politicians, public servants, and whose poetry was a factor
of that service, and to whom therefore to retire from this work was to
retire from their livelihood, ambitions, and sense of purpose. This would
not be an act lightly undertaken, but a bitter recourse in a desperate
situation. The case of Du Fu strikes me as obvious.  The point is anyway
that they were clearly "in" politics from the start in a  a very real and
serious way, and this empowered them to withdraw from it when necessary.

I don't see that we inhabit politics in any comparable way. I don't thus
see that we have either right or obligation to speak "politically" other
than the right or obligation any citizen has to speak out against
injustice-- but by what necessity does that become a poetical speaking?
Surely there are languages and procedures for doing that which have nothing
to do with poetry and are all the more likely to be heard or effective
thereby? Why should poetry want to do badly what prose can do better?

Jon's point was very important about how the poet is no longer in a
position to command political attention, how even very recently in east
European countries which have retained a more stable sense of attached
values, the poet achieves a public presence which gives him/her the chance,
if not the right, to be a political force through poetry.  Compared with
this the contemporary poet here is addressing the air. It's not necessarily
a sad loss because it opens other opportunities which were closed to people
like Seferis, and represents a freedom from interference which Mandelstam
would obviously have envied.

And it is precisely our long history of experimentalism, of course, which
has removed the poet from that kind of position. You can't surely have it
both ways-- you can't work poetry into an unreadable and untransmissable or
totally personalised language-use and at the same time demand the ears of
the multitude. Even if you speak in a different way then.

And we should remember that the development of radical poetry has
insistently cultivated an extremist attitude which may be good for radical
poetry but may be very harmful when turned towards politics, where we are
after all dealing with people's immediate lives.

Doug had to put a caveat after the name of almost every modern poet he
mentioned as having had real political (? or social) effect, as if implying
that this was done at great cost or loss, not to the poet but to the
poetry, or that it was  realised from a  position of extremism the value of
which as "influence on people's lives" might be extremely negative. I take
it influence is not valued for its own sake, but only for the good. Pound
was not mentioned but he also had influence beyond poetry and is still
valued for it in some extreme-right circles, I expect.

Probably we can all think of people whose lives have been irremediably
broken by the influence of poets. Like all those who shot over to Buffalo
(or not) in the hysteria of The New American Poetry and came back heroin
ghouls. That was political too.


A poet needs to be in the position of the most ordinary person.


Meanwhile Keston's direct challenge has been completely bypassed.  His
letter forced a dilemma onto the discussion which demands settling and
which renders all else meaningless until it is settled. His question "can
poetry by other than metaphysical" is where we have to decide whether we
are or are not still in the poetical condition where, for instance, the
writing of measured or regulated verse is "a symbolic act of loyalty to the
central government." (1) and the whole language condition implied. I make
no attempt to deal with this question now, or probably ever. I'll just say
that.


And that--

I think the most useful thing poets can do politically in their work is to
produce a poetry which reads as if it is free from big bosses, which has an
inhering liberty in the way it proceeds, in the way the mind moves in it,
whether the poet is able to realise that liberty in his own life or not.

All this about political poetry is a bit too much like big bosses hovering
over poets saying "You've got be political."


/PR


(1) Stephen Owen, Chinese Poetry and Poetics, 1985.




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager