No one's talking about anything except the Angel Exhaust issue on this list
because if you try to, no one else takes it up. And if you do try (I have
several times), the implication is that you don't give a fig about Bill
Griffiths, Eric, or all the rest of it. Doesn't matter if you say several
times that you do give a fig, that you think Bill's a really fine poet, that
Lawrence is a force for the good, that Eric's reputation seems secure in its
own specificity.
I don't mind Bill defending his poetry at all and let David B defend himself
as he can too: may it not become personally damaging, that's all. But
Lawrence's flick from AD towards the Iraq question shows how imbalanced this
discussion risks becoming.
The American/British attacks on Iraq had become politically inevitable -- it
was clear from a month or two back that things would wind up this way (I don't
mean I approve). The causes of it, of course, have practically nothing to do
with impeachment, not even in relation to "timing", but originate (somewhat)
in the mistakes made by Bush's ambassador, April Gaspar (? sp) in 1991,
followed by the Gulf War, followed by the inevitabilities set in train by the
sanctions-inspection coupling. But, in turn, those mistakes originated in
klutzy-vicious, oil-motivated US foreign policy towards the Middle East
throughout the 1980s. And then we haven't even begun to think of Hussein's
dreadfulness and the unpleasant fact that no one at all has had any practical
idea of how to stop him. All this is cliché.
Before the Gulf War, I was in New York and saw from about September onwards
that Bush was going to force Iraq to fight. Alice & I joined a piddly little
street demonstration, our Scarlet magazine wrote leaders against the coming
conflict, but it was only a crucial UN vote that brought out a major anti-war
demonstration round the United Nations building. By then, as we all knew, it
was too late. The war took place in the blink of an eye. I remember telling
an anti-war panel after the hostilities, that the terrifying thing about
modern war is that it has been decided and is then over before a populace can
begin to wake up. The same is true with the current Iraq question.
We were talking about political poetry. With increasing frequency, it will in
future be possible only to write poetry regretting wars that have already
occurred. This is unfortunately regarded as yet another example of how poetry
is powerless to express political views.
Wars are caused by mistakes occurring in politics perhaps long before the
event -- 50 years, say, or in the case of colonial boundaries drawn up in
1885, 150 years before various wars (and influencing even the present Iraqi
question in indirect ways). I can't guess what the long-term effect of
current British-American bombing will be on future Arab attitudes, but there
will be an effect, let us be assured. Elsewhere, Islamic fundamentalism
didn't come from nowhere. Had British-American policy towards all the Arab
countries been wiser over the whole post-WWII period, it would have been
easier to isolate Sadam Hussein now, perhaps without war. Global trading has
been a secret driver of these events, and so on.
A citizen's best anti-war policy is to increase awareness of these
anticipatory mistakes within his/her own circles: it's part of normal citizen-
responsibility to try to spread one's sense of good opinion around one's
circle. No doubt there are other, more immediate actions too -- writing to
government, demonstrations, etc., depending on one's read-out of the
situation. Poets are not exempt from this (it's part, part only of course, of
their poetic task), and have a slight advantage over the average citizen in
that their opinions spread slightly more widely. Whether we are successful or
not (and almost certainly not), our responsibility won't go away.
So much of modern poetry's response to politics is to become preoccupied with
its own poetics, so that the openness of interpretation shall create a certain
amount of awareness but no harm. The disappointing discussion about
Mozambique went that way too. This approach is fine in its own terms-- to
spread no-harmfulness can never be a bad thing -- but, since there is,
nonetheless, harmfulness occurring all around the world, it may also represent
a small-mindedness, often a laziness to engage more fully with the issues.
For example, connecting the Angel Exhaust question in any way whatsoever with
Iraq would be inexcusable outside this e-mail environment -- where I
understand a speedy phrase might go wrong, and where clearly the phrase came
out of Lawrence's intense humane concern.
Well, you'll say, I've said similar things before. But how can I move my own
statements further along if there's no answering debate other than to dismiss
the whole thing by saying "poetry can't really deal with these issues"? It's
like talking in a hollow hall with, in the entrance tunnel, a little green
baize club door, closed but buzzing with voices.
Doug
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|