other sources for modern poetry

Notes on other sources for modern poetry; or, what have we here?

I have just finished proof-reading Beautiful Feelings of Sensitive People. In the book, I don’t discuss other critics of recent poetry. This is a function which people might ask my book to carry out, so I thought to make amends in a limited way by making a few notes here, on my blog. I expect to be criticised for not recording the consensus, but what I am suggesting is that there is no consensus - not for 1000 poets publishing after 2000, and not yet.

Helen Ivory/ George Szirtes. ‘In their own words’. 2012. Contains prose statements by sixty poets on their own work. I didn’t think most of the poets were very talented and so I only find about eight of these pieces really interesting. But those eight are vital.

Jon Thompson. The Encounter. A handbook of poetic practice. 2022. A set of essays by 30 poets about how they came to write their works. Most of these are Americans, anyway Thompson clearly has enough knowledge of his subjects to pick only ones who can write incredibly interesting prose – because things are actually happening in their brain, I suppose. The average level of these pieces is incredibly high. I rewrote one of my essays (in BF) directly because the information in The Encounter was so good.
I didn’t go on to read the American poets, because if there are 1000 talented British poets then I have to focus, like an athlete in training. This isn’t the best possible thing for me. Maybe I can finish my project and then time will arrive on its own. The title refers to "unexpected encounters ... that come to shape what gets to be written."

Fiona Sampson, Beyond the lyric. 2012. This covers about 70 poets of the time, one of them having made a debut after 2000. I wasn't interested in most of these poets. It doesn't stand as a guide to the new century. (The one exception is Ahren Warner.) The book stands, for me, as an illustration of how much people differ; the full spectrum includes a great range of reactions I don’t have. Sampson is preoccupied with approval, and at times is more interested in the patron-poet relationship than in whether the poems are any good. That duet of anxiety and validation. Evidently, the situation with thousands of (at least) competent poets hoping every opportunity will be theirs (and not Yours) brings anxiety to centre stage -and the means of assuaging it.
Allott’s anthology (1918-60) included a 60% share for Oxford and Cambridge poets. It may be that he thought validation of that kind made everything feel superior and secure. I am wondering if Sampson feels the same way: validation is such a key moment in the social process, and for her being validated by some editor at a High Street firm is a moment of transformation which is endlessly fascinating. So, we are asked to enjoy being in the company of Top People, rather than evaluate poems, their texture and symbolism. Perhaps the idea that you were giving time to someone who Wasn’t Validated causes anxiety and the close-down of aesthetic experience, like a bath growing cold. I've got to say that a lot of people who can write poetry don't give off waves of affluence and security.
There is a brief mention of Martinez de las Rivas, who did debut post 2000 - he had only published one pamphlet at that time. I think the count of poets debuting after 1990 but before 2000 might be three.

prose snapshots in Identity Parade, the anthology edited by Roddie Lumsden, 2010. A comparison with Sampson is interesting. Lumsden includes debuts after 1995, and 85 people, of whom only three feature in Sampson's book. The conclusion is that Sampson was dealing with an older generation and had just not taken on a new generation, 15 year-groups or however you count it. Lumsden's collection is a milestone for that reason, that he has given an image of those year-groups. However, his prose comments are inane. he explicitly refers to Lucie-Smith as a model, but Lucie-Smith's comments in his 1970 anthology are cogent, brilliant, get to the core, point to flaws. Lumsden is too political to say anything interesting. And 'Dear World' is a much better anthology.

John Matthias. British poetry at Y2K. A long essay which appeared on the internet, and is now collected in a book of his essays. Certainly worth arguing with. Matthias selected the anthology “23 British poets”, in 1971 I think, which Mottram used as the basis for his “British Poetry Revival” essay in 1974. He may be the only American who understands British poetry. The essay relates to the year 2000, so it has become less relevant as years have gone by – I certainly found it interesting, though.

Robert Sheppard. Several books about the London School or a fraction of the London School. Not about poetry after about 1995. His big idea is Indeterminacy, which was the subject of his doctoral thesis, which itself was about Roy Fisher, Tom Raworth and Lee Harwood – poets who were at their prime in the 1960s. It is relevant to the 21st century but not very salient. This material probably is very high quality help in thinking about poets like Maggie O’Sullivan and Adrian Clarke.

Luke Roberts, Glacial decoys. It doesn’t mention duck hunting and it isn’t about glaciers. Has firm judgements without much reasoning supplied. It is perfectly honest, which is better. This certainly saves time. The judgements are enlightening. It gives us modern poetry as “present time”, how it feels to live through it. I wouldn't say it is a typical story, but nothing you can find is typical, so that isn’t a criticism. Ths is extremely interesting to read.

Reviews in Poetry Review. I have just gone through 7 issues of PR looking at the reviews. I don’t find them very helpful and I am not sure why that is. The choice of who to review reflects “collective knowledge” of people who talk to the editor of Poetry Review, so that is a good indicator: if you take 100 reviews in the magazine, at least half of them will be of poets you want to know about. I suspect the problem is that the reviewers are actually playing the game: they can see dozens of other players in front of them and flanking them, they take in all the information, but they don’t want to do a negative view because there might be repercussions and they are too much “on the pitch” to be blind to those. So, also, they don’t want to give a rave review, because that would promote the other poets, whose book it is, over their heads. They would lose standing. At the same time, they have lots of very relevant, new, timely, information, which they reveal almost by accident. The ground tone is enthusiastic because the business wants visible enthusiasm, to encourage the customers. PR doesn't run very many negative reviews, not in the course of a year or even ten years. But also, my feel is that quite a few books every year deserve Rave Reviews, and they don’t get them.
PR employ people who are in the game, not people with detachment and distantiation.
I haven’t got exact figures on this, but my grasp is that PR edited by Fiona Sampson was generous to older poets, and editors since she left have been almost totally focussed on new poets (or, at least, poets under 40). The youth focus is undoubtedly more stimulating. And I think the business has gone in this direction. As I have, personally, with Beautiful Feelings.

Martin Stannard. The big headline here is Raworth's “Letter to Martin Stannard”, where he explains how he writes. This was a response to a Stannard review, no doubt. You can find Martin’s more recent reviews on the internet, usually. There is a collected volume but it stops in 2000.
Martin was editor of Joe Soap’s Canoe from some point in the Seventies or early Eighties, and his big enthusiasm then was as a fan of the New York School. In comparison with the NYS, he finds English poetry anti-intellectual, slow, un-self-aware, pedestrian, etc. Big surprise, right? He doesn't have the same commitment to any faction in the British scene. I always find his reviews substantial, he spends a long time with each text and discusses what he actually finds, not who the poet is allied with.

Statements in the “best British poetry” series. This series of annual anthologies (halting after the fifth volume, in 2015) included statements by poets (at the back). This might seem insubstantial, but actually a lot of these pieces are very informative. People stopped being defensive, for some reason. It’s not a matter of the word count, but actually this is maybe 160 pages altogether. Maybe the lesson is that an editor/critic doesn't need to say anything, but just to persuade people to loosen up.

The Waterloo Book of Contemporary Poetry. Simon had a plan for a book which wrote about 1000 contemporary poets. This never happened, for obvious logistical reasons and some less obvious ones too. If you check out the Poetry Book Society website, over 5 years they have 1000 books (I counted 1140) and a write-up for each one. So the “thousandfold book” exists at that level. And it is the format best suited to guiding people around modern poetry. You would only get 200 words for each poet: "Poeticules will get 50-100, normally I'd say 200-300 for less-known, less gifted or prominent poets, larger reputations or of real interest 700, and Hill, well I was going to say 1200." I found this format frustrating, but after some effort I realised that you can say a lot in 200 words once you have formed a clear judgement. And, if you can’t do that, you are in the wrong business. I really wish this book existed. I think the weakest point was wanting to have a career survey of everybody, that was a bridge too far: it works so much better if you take one book and write about what you can hold in your hand. Norman Jope emailed "As for the number of authors featured, 1000 is an understandable target but I suspect, on the basis of my knowledge of the Plymouth scene and the sheer number of names that crop up more widely, that you could go well over that number and still not capture everybody who's had a presence[.]"
My job would be so much easier if I had a book like this as a start point. Of course, it’s evident that you actually want two such books so that you can get access to different points of view, so you can do a comparison of sources. The project would need people (and these might be the half-dozen people Simon initially contacted) to argue about who should be included, so that the finished prose would emerge from that discussion.
By chance, I have a copy of PR from 1996. In that issue is a letter from Kathleen Jamie, complaining that Sheenagh Pugh had written a less than adulatory review of a female poet (Eavan Boland). Jamie was indignant. She thought you couldn’t possibly give a bad review of a bad female poet. She hadn't given permission for this to happen. Pugh replied, in the next issue, neatly flicking Jamie over the boundary. To be truthful, PR probably hasn't run even one negative review of a person of femaleness since 1996. Not everybody wants to be honest. If you have 4000 books by female poets coming out in that time, were they all good? I submit the answer is no.

PR has probably run north of 2000 reviews since 1996. That is your “thousandfold book”, in physical but disconnected form. You could collect all those reviews, but nobody would think that is a good idea. Not everyone is called Sheenagh Pugh, and not every reviewer has any intention of answering the question “what have we here?”

Steve Spence. Reviews widespread but not collected – I have seen a file which does collect them all, a hundred or so. It would really be helpful if these were collected as a book. Steve doesn’t like giving negative reviews, but he is committed to modern poetry, not to something from 50 years ago or 80 years ago. Some of these are on-line at Litter, a magazine edited and run here in Nottingham.

Random interviews. Don’t have a mother lode of these but obviously there are quite a few on the Internet. Of especial interest, I found three (I think it was three) interviews with Toby Martinez de las Rivas. He is a very good interview subject and these were vital to writing sensibly about him.

Robert wanted to tell me how much he'd updated his positions since 2005. This is the chapter list for his new book:
Introduction: Form, Forms and Forming
1. Veronica Forrest-Thomson: Poetic Artifice and Naturalization in Theory and Practice
2. Convention and Constraint: Form in the Innovative Sonnet Sequence
3. Translation as Transformation: Tim Atkins’ and Peter Hughes’ Petrarch
4. Meddling the Medieval: Caroline Bergvall and Erín Moure
5. Translation as Occupation: Simon Perril and Sean Bonney
6. Rosmarie Waldrop: Poetics, Wild Forms and Palimpsest Prose
7. The Trace of Poetry and the Non-Poetic: Conceptual Writing and Appropriation in Kenneth Goldsmith, Vanessa Place and John Seed
8. Stefan Themerson: Iconopoeia and Thought-Experiments in the Theater of Semantic Poetry
9. The Making of the Book: Bill Griffiths and Allen Fisher
10. Geraldine Monk’s Poetics and Performance: Catching Form in the Act
11. Form and the Antagonisms of Reality: Barry MacSweeney’s Sin Signs

Place debuted after 2000, I think, and is American, but none of the others did. So, this isn't going to get us very far with 21st century poetry. I am sure that older poets have a more legitimate aura - but that is because critics have written about them. This isn't a great argument for not writing about young poets.

Hooker on Place. Right after finishing the proofing, I received a copy of Hooker’s book Art of Seeing which includes a new statement of the history of poetry about place. “During this period [post-war and in England, AD] there has been an upsurge of English poetry associated with place in Basil Bunting's Briggflatts, Geoffrey Hill’s Mercian Hymns, Roy Fisher’s City, and Donald Davie’s Essex Poems; in Jack Clemo's Cornish poems and Charles Tomlinson's poems set in Gloucestershire; in the work of CH Sisson, Michael Hamburger, Ted Hughes, Paul Hyland, Molly Holden, Kim Taplin, John Welch and other poets. The American poets John Matthias and Ronald Johnson have drawn on native resources in their seeing of place[.].” This is not especially complete, but it does offer a new way of thinking about landscape poetry. Hooker lived in Wales and evidently had in mind the Welsh idea of bro which is both a community and a district, made up of places. This is distinct both from the older humanist way of writing about beautiful landscapes, and the post-humanist view of Nature as alien to humanity. I am not familiar with the name Paul Hyland but have ordered his selected poems (2004) via the second-hand market.