 |
 |
Dear Geraldine Thanks so much for yours (kissing and making up - please). To me, your "electricity" is it. I think it is very difficult to have an identifiable measure for all poetries - and near impossible when considering sound/concrete/performance poetry. The frame, the medium is different and is not the page - but relates entirely to the page. Indeed, everything relates to the page - drama, visual art, a musical score. I too get that electricity from John Clare's poetry, from Shelley's 'Ode To The West Wind' and thousands more. I get that electricity too from Aborigine 'creationist chants,' etc. Perhaps I'm looking at this entirely the wrong way round: rather than good/bad perhaps the essentials are - building participation and thereby audience? I don't imagine the inspiring poets of the 60s and early 70s had a criteria as to 'good' poetry, 'bad' poetry - they did it and created interactive audiences around 'doing it.' 'Doing it' doesn't negate previous work - the classics et al - but could provide a way forward. The reason why the Quill Writing Group is the fastest growing writing group in the UK is a) they're doing it for themselves and b) writers/artists like myself have never been judgemental about their work - though I've personally thrown a hundred writing options at them!! While I totally understand your mention of 'inhouse' publication with a specific group, my task here is to let them find the 'electricity.' I have that faith. When - not if - the lightning strikes, we all gain. Electricity is it. All best wishes, Rupert > > > Dear Rupert, > This is very sweet of you and I think we should all now kiss and make up - > metaphorically speaking of course. These hiccups happen. I have them all > the time so I think you're allowed the odd one now and again. But this is > much appreciated. > > And not for one moment should you apologise for the good/bad poetry > debate, in fact you get a gold star from bringing that up. That's > something that needs talking about. In fact I think Peter agreed with you > on this point whereas I don't so it's a debate that doesn't have clearly > defined enemies or allies which makes it much more meaty. > > I've certainly been persuaded by some of the arguments that good/bad is > far too loaded with moral rectitude and in that sense I can actually find > myself agreeing with your statement. But if we're saying that there is no > difference whatsoever in the standard (the electricity?) of writing > between, let's say, my hospice patients (some of whom became close > personal friends before departing for the Pearly Gates) and, let's say, > John Donne or Marianne Moore then I absolutely 100 per cent disagree. If > I'd thought any of my hospice patients had come anywhere near these > writers I'd have gone out my way to try and get their stuff published or > publish them myself. But they didn't. I published them 'in house' at the > hospice for their friends and families. I still have all the publications. > They are amongst my most treasured possessions but that's because of my > memories not because their writing was worth preserving for posterity - to > be honest quite a lot of it was atrocious by anyone's standards. > > Tweet-tweet, > Geraldine >