I likes David's posting - it, at least, clearly draws an outline of part of whatever-it-is that has been 'going on'. that the British state, and its managers of metaphor, ensures its continuity by re-mapping the included is a 'genuine tradition' (mock-American tourist accent please, wearing the face of Michael Schmidt) going back to the 18th century at least. The recent tones of hegemonic legislation in Poetry Review editorials have not been unnoticed in my quarter, as have the frequency of pronouncements of poets of 'the circuit' (from Peter Porter to many a middle-class middle-aged Home Counties-ish lady bard, these at readings at Leicester, briefly (14th century) seat of Parli-a-ment) that demonize (Oxford) a usually nameless beast of incomprehensibility that threatens, it seems, the new (and mythical) popularity of poetry, the state of your rosebeds, the value of your shares and the implied continuance of funds from the Arts Council. I am wary, however, of both the presumed opposition and of the substantive existence of alternative prosodies. The phrase 'traditional prosody', to take the latter former, I understand to mean a largely Victorian invention, possibly necessitated by the pre-Standard Business Machines need for an army of clerks, which I do not believe reflects the writing practice of say 17th century poets, or the Romantics. When I look at 'mainstreamers' like Heaney or radicals like Denise Riley I don't see that great a dissimilarity of techniques, both practice flexible modellings about the normal rhythmic drifts of English. I just do not believe there is at present an adequate description of English prosody in existence. Period. On the matter of the opposition my unease grows daily - it seems to my pleb's head that what might really be going on is a disguised war between 'Oxford-London' and 'Cambridge-London' for the Court's and the Monarch's Ear. The tones of TOTAL and its like from neo-Marxists on the Cam sound (to my life-of-being-controlled's hearing) very, very scary and redolent of cheats of empowerment's dem-ise (Cambridge). I am reminded too that Grosseteste was an advisor to the Court on estate management (i.e. getting more out of the workforce for less). I'd like to see David K's (who let in Kafka then?) essay in full when it appears. david as in bircumshaw ----- Original Message ----- From: David Kennedy <[log in to unmask]> To: "british-poets >" <"british-poets" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 11:29 AM Subject: Re: A Mainstream or Many Niles? Robert wrote: "David, when you have time, could you unpack 'reinvented the pluralism and fragmentation of 1982-89'?" Here are excerpts from a soon to be published paper on this subject. The context is a discussion of W N Herbert's poem 'Mappamundi'. Sean O'Brien's comment about Simon Armitage articulates a prevalent view that could be applied to large areas of recent mainstream writing. O'Brien argues that his work, "proceeds very confidently from the assumption that there is no battle to be won about where he comes from - he is a generation on from Tony Harrison - this battle has been fought and won and it's not something he has to concern himself with." What is significant here is that O'Brien's comment misses the way that Armitage, Herbert and Crawford, like Harrison and Heaney before them, have found and continue to find it useful to mobilise cultural and linguistic shibboleths. I would argue that this mobilisation and its acceptance function in a similar way to that identified by Peter Middleton in the context of political writing: "Heaney's success as a poet is part of a widespread phenomenon in recent British literature. A surrogate political culture has developed in which the representations of political struggles within South Africa, Eastern Europe, India and Ireland provide the primary media for much of the politically conscious cultural argument widely disseminated within the public sphere in England." The mobilisation of shibboleths and their acceptance - from Heaney's 'last / gh the strangers found / difficult to manage' to Harrison's '[uz]' - functions as a simulacrum of the mainstream's inclusiveness. Shibboleths become the marks of irreducible difference which simultaneously exoticise works from outside the mainstream and thereby disguise the fact that they reproduce the mainstream's models of subjectivity as well as what W N Herbert terms its 'traditional prosody'. More to point, a shibboleth does not exclude but identifies work for an intended audience. As Louis MacNeice once wrote: 'Ireland being a small country, the Irishman can trade on the glamour of minorities.' To extend MacNeice's metaphor: shibboleths become items of barter between the periphery and the dominant culture. If Herbert really is 'a bittern stoarm aff Ulm' then there is a strong sense in which it is uncertain whether he is satirising expectations or playing up to them. Finally, the belief in the existence of a poetic tradition which welcomes irreducible difference is also a comforting belief in the existence of something called 'the British nation'. It is possible to detect another way in which place which has become intimately concerned with the valuation of poetry. Place, in the sense of both origin and location, has become highly marketable. I discuss this process at greater length in my book New Relations: The Refashioning of British Poetry 1980-1994 and will restrict myself to one example here. The blurb of Simon Armitage's best-selling first collection ZOOM! quotes one reviewer noting that Armitage's voice 'really is his own voice - his language and rhythms drawn from the Pennine village where he lives: robust, no-nonsense and (above all) honest'. Here authenticity, geography and value appear to have become virtually synonymous. More importantly, perhaps, poets seem to have become synonymous with their audience. Neil Astley, founder of Britain's largest independent poetry publisher Bloodaxe Books, remarked in an interview that 'the provinces are after all where everyone lives'. Once again, a particular way of reading a map results in a species of poetic democracy. If large areas of British poetry have been involved in 'writing back to the centre' or in simply ignoring it, the imagined London-Oxford centre - where, presumably, in poetic terms most people don't live - has not been inactive either. W. N. Herbert's portrayal of Ireland being shifted to London symbolises the way in which the mainstream reinvents itself by assimilating or overtly annexing particular types of activity at the periphery. Terry Eagleton, surveying British poetry of the 1980s for Poetry Review, observed that 'The poets who seem to me to matter most are those ''skewed' to the dominant social wisdom [...] in the sense of having access to historical or symbolic resources, submerged allegiances and affiliations' and characterised the period 'as (very broadly) polarized between [...] writing, where the marginal becomes somehow central, and a self-absorbed, knowing, postmodernist ironizing'. Eagleton categorised these two types of writing in terms of 'region (Heaney, Muldoon, Paulin), class (Dunn, Harrison) [and] gender (McGuckian)'. As this makes abundantly clear, there are permissible ways of being 'skewed' to the dominant social and cultural wisdom. For example, Allen Fisher, Roy Fisher, Trevor Joyce and Denise Riley are all poets who would fit Eagleton's categories equally well but whose work has little interest in what might be termed an easily consumable and assimilable prosody. An editorial in a Poetry Review from the early 1990s made the same point as Eagleton but with a very different emphasis, lamenting that in Britain 'canon-making has collapsed into hectic pluralism and specialist interest serving'. This, the editorial went on to argue, was to the detriment of 'an audience, beyond the insiders, who would like to know what is happening in poetry'. What has been happening from the mid-1990s onwards is a process whereby the 'poetry establishment' has sought to make skewed perspectives, marginality and ironising part of itself in the service of a so-called new populism. Activity by the Poetry Society and editorials in Poetry Review show this process at its most obvious. The event which did the most to promote assimilation in the service of populism was the New Generation Poets promotion of Summer 1994, a kind of poetic 'Best of Young British Novelists'. The promotion was the brain child of the then poetry editors at Harvill, Faber and Secker who, reported Poetry Review, 'felt that the strength of the new generation of poets justified a major celebration'. Twenty poets were chosen who were notable for their 'ex-centricity': there were, for example, seven Scots, one Irish-American, one Anglo-German, one Guyanese Indian and one Pakistani. Poetry Review's editor Peter Forbes noted that 'These poets are the true fruits of postmodernism', celebrated their 'isolation and intensity' and in the same article mocked The Oxford Companion to 20th Century Poetry as 'a map of a lost empire, that famous hegemony'. Nevertheless, a year later a new hegemony seemed to be emerging. In an article entitled 'Why The New Popular Poetry Makes More Sense' Forbes wrote of poetry's 'resurgent popularity' evidenced in such things as 'Poems on the Underground, the Forward Prizes, National Poetry day, promotions like New Generation Poets and Poetry for Christmas'. Poetry's 'resurgent popularity', Forbes argued, was founded on what he termed 'the New Plain Style' and its 'grab-you-by the lapels directness' which was a much needed and overdue 'antidote' to the excesses of postmodernism. He used three of the most accessible of the New Generation Poets, Simon Armitage, Glyn Maxwell and Carol Ann Duffy, to support his argument. In a more recent issue devoted to 'New Women Poets' Forbes observes that while, collectively, their work exhibits 'no dominant style, [...] the rise of formalism is noteworthy'. It has, then, been an apparently short journey from 'the fruits of postmodernism' to its antidote. However, while postmodernism has certainly influenced a significant number of mainstream British poets who began to write and publish in the 1980s and 1990s, it has never reached the status of a full-blown counter-tradition as it has in America. What is really being celebrated in Forbes's talk of 'resurgent popularity' and 'the new plain style' is the end of what Poetry Review lamented at the start of the 1990s as 'hectic pluralism and specialist interest serving'. The New Generation Poets promotion showed that with the use of marketing and public relations poetry can be made into an identifiable commodity that had little to do with the factions and tribes of the poetry scene. 'The new popular poetry', Forbes asserted, is something that 'becomes part of your emergency emotional repair kit'. It can be sold direct to a newly identified audience for accessible poetry. It was this audience who, for example, bought 100,000 copies of Poems on the Underground within its first six months of publication and bought well in excess of 200,000 copies of the pamphlet edition of Auden's 'Funeral Blues', popularised by its use in the film Four Weddings and a Funeral. British poetry, in its late 1990s manifestation, started to look and behave like other cultural genres. It had something to sell and someone to sell it to. Value could now be easily defined in terms of the number of books sold and the size of the audience reached. The public space was no longer disused or vestigial. British poetry's reinvented mainstream seems to parallel what the sociologist Krishan Kumar terms 'the standardized principles of global marketing, and the differentiated products of global consumption'. According to these principles, the heterogeneity of the 'ex-centric', the marginal and the peripheral is raided in order to revitalise and refurbish the homogeneity of the centre. Diversity is used to underwrite a new uniformity. cheers David %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%