Dear List,
Apologies for putting David Bircumshaw in such a flurry. I assumed
that after his work on my behalf in 'Angel Exhaust' 12 - after the
editorship had mysteriously passed to Andrew Duncan - that he would
scarcely be surprised at my responding. His provocation was after
all not unakin to shoving me in the ear with an umbrella with a
horse's head handle.
Now here the average list member can check the internet site for
'Angel Exhaust' if they like and see if I am being oversensitive
about his contribution or not. That very same issue embellished by
David Bircumshaw contained an unsatisfactory assessment of Eric
Mottram, while earlier issues contained abusive assessments of Bob
Cobbing and his work, with the occasional germinal poke at my good
self.
This is the context in which David Bircumshaw chose to place his
curious re-writing of one my shortest poems. So short, that it
hardly needed a Bircumshaw at all to point out its short-comings.
Nonetheless he valiantly strives to make as much muck and
pig out of nine lines as he can. I would say this was very much
placing himself at the forefront of the campaign against a few
targeted poets, which flowered so spectacularly in Andrew Duncan's
article for 'First Offence'.
Why do I object to David Bircumshaw claiming an anti-right
stance for his critical mirage? Because the main figures
attacked by his associate Andrew Duncan are Eric Mottram and
Bob Cobbing. That this is some harmless expression of mutual
rivalry between Cambridge and London I beg to disbelieve; it
seems to me more significant that these two have been key
figures in a socialist-democratic expansion of modern culture -
not by any overtly political action, but by a generous disposition
to encourage innovation and experiment, as against the rather
elite, exclusive, and negative image of European High Culture
Andrew Duncan seems to me to propagate.
What else is there to link David Bircumshaw and Andrew Duncan? A
very considerable similarity of tone and attitude I should say.
They share the same dependence on Freudian assumptions (David
Bircumshaw, mailing of 8 Nov 1998 re puns and Andrew Duncan on
poetry as confession in essay on Bob Cobbing in 'Angel Exhaust'
9-10). The same defensive ploy of resorting to rare words and
unexplained elite concepts (David Bircumshaw's recent mailings and
Andrew Duncan passim). They also share a sort of self-mystification
process, as though they chose to locate in some startling scifi
situation of Jack Vance.
I am not saying that David Bircumshaw and Andrew Duncan share one
brain. I have no evidence on this subject at all.
But it does seem to me odd, that David Bircumshaw should somehow
naturally see abstract words as alternatives to insults. Again,
this rings remarkably like the tendency to personal abuse that
Andrew Duncan has come to favour recently. He can hardly have
misunderstood my preference for facts over abstractions when it
comes to serious assessment of any subject. But perhaps in all
this he coincides with Andrew Duncan purely by coincidence, and
it is evidence of no cultural connection or sympathy at all.
How can we test it? By deeds, surely, rather than words.
Will David Bircumshaw withdraw his mangling of my poem from
publication and from the internet and apologise?
I do not expect any amazing revelation or denunciation. I merely
ask him to be a little less evasive about his position, and little
more considerate before he single anyone out again for would-be
worldwide dishonour. This is surely the way - rather than treating us
to lots of long words - to establish his name for fairness and
objectivity.
bill
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|