War-weary
I was reading Max Hastings’ overall history of the Second World War (“All hell let loose”, 2011). I was impressed by a remark about the rate of desertion on the Italian Front, by 1944; he has 30,000 soldiers ‘absent without leave’. I figure that the 8th Army was about 200,000 people and, given that many of them were artillery, line of communication troops, staff, catering, etc., this is a high proportion of all the combat troops. Hastings emphasises that it was the units facing imminent death, or also delayed death, who produced most of the deserters. They were the ones who had watched large numbers of their comrades die or get carried off on a stretcher. His wording is “The rear areas teemed with military fugitives, men ‘on the trot’… Thirty thousand British deserters were estimated by some informed senior officers to be at liberty in Italy in 1944-5 […] and around half that number of Americans.” He also records “capital punishment was deemed politically unacceptable.”
This sheds a light on the New Romantic line of poetry. After all, the key to that movement was opposition to the war – starting from opposition to the State. And then to propaganda, to mobilisation, to directing culture towards “the morale of the Home Front”, etc. So, they were the party of not being militarist. I am used to thinking that they didn’t matter, because not enough people opposed the war, but it now looks as if they were on the wrong side because so many people didn’t want to fight, and the problem is that their party was far too large. I can't easily place myself on the side of the anarchist-pacifists.
Hastings stresses the legal difference between desertion and being “absent without leave”. He notes that "official war histories set the desertion figures much lower". This sounds like protecting a state secret. I think the point is that the senior officers were aware that it was the fighting men who had this problem. Desertion is a crime, subject to military law, which might imply execution. But these were actually the men who had won all the battles, from El Alamein on. So, you could have a large pool of people who weren’t reporting to their unit, weren't on parade, but weren't written up as illegally avoiding combat. I think it means this.
I have never seen anyone write about the desertion issue. I think we can talk about a lot of people being war-weary, certainly after D-Day, but probably after the end of the North African campaign. People saw victory on the way, but they had also had enough. This is when you see escapist films being made (the Gainsborough melodramas). You didn't really have a free press, and I can imagine that a journalist in Italy who used the phrase “war weary” would lose accreditation instantly, and just be sent home. I am wondering if the newspaper, back in London, would have printed the story. News was part of the war effort. So possibly there were plenty of journalists aware of this desertion issue, but they didn’t write up the story.
The questions around New Romanticism aren’t wholly about rhythm, imagery, etc., since really the issue was whether you believed 100% in the war effort and the State, or if you wanted to have a personal life and a personal space. But that exposition of “personal myth” as the sacred space of culture aroused mass hostility from people who also believed in the war effort, and who saw troops evading combat in Italy as the greatest threat to the country.
A page posted by Leeds University's Film Studies department says "After 1943 though, a violent swing against realism carried British cinema away from the war to the exoticism of the Gainsborough costume films, the spiv cycle and the whimsical nostalgia of Ealing comedy." The paper is by Robert Murphy, whose book on 40s British cinema I have read a couple of times. It identifies a return to the war theme in 1950, with "The Wooden Horse" and "Odette". I suppose we could define that date as the end of war-weariness. It is also when the New Romantic thing is agreed to have come to an end (or at least become marginal). This dissatisfaction in the last two years of the war is important also because it opened a space for people resisting being part of the Cold War Effort in the 1950s and 1960s.
My guess is that people, after 1945, wanted films to tell the stories which had been kept out of the newspapers during the war. A release of totalitarian strictures. None of the films did this, because the commercial weight was with depicting heroism, social unity under pressure, group coherence, etc. The films all identify the State with virtue and unity – with the voice of Society, in fact. They continued the melodies of wartime propaganda, even though they were made by private businesses, not by any arm of the State. Evidently, a lot of people didn’t share that memory. The films weren't very good, and faded away after 1960, although I don’t think disappointment was the only factor in this.
OK, some of those war films are worth watching. I certainly liked "Ice Cold in Alex" and "The Small Back Room." And "The Silent Enemy".
Hastings’ footnoting is unclear, but a source he does cite is a Brigadier R.A. Penney in ‘The Penney papers’, available in an archive. He does not cite a printed source, and I do not recall seeing any film or novel which tells this story of soldiers “absent from duty” in Italy in 1944-5, although it looks like one of the most interesting stories of the war. I wonder how they got home, how they were eventually mustered out, etc. I think the story with deserters around 1946 is that they were all amnestied and care was taken to avoid anyone being able to count them.
Thursday 31 October 2024
Thursday 17 October 2024
How norms get changed
I now feel unhappy with one chapter of ‘BF’ and I would like to add something to clarify it. It is the chapter “Language is made of rules”.
If you look at the vanity press sector, you find that the poets have ignored reforms made during the 20th C and are writing poetry which is out of date and which the contemporary audience just doesn't want. These are many people- I estimate that 1 in 3 of the poetry titles published in 1960 were vanity titles. There are several reforms which are basic to the scene. Clearly, the vanity poets, like other outsiders, reject these reforms – reject the right of editors (or, whoever it was!) to legislate such changes- and claim their right to protest and repeal these changes. It emerges, from the fact that the rules can be changed, that there are rules. This is what the chapter is about.
Moving away from vanity presses, it looks as if many under-published poets also regard the decisions of editors as enslaved to rules, and believe that those rules can be protested and repealed. I am more interested how the rules are enacted and updated. This is quite hard to recover. The indicative fact is someone publishing, in the 1970s, a book which adhered to styles which had been in fashion prior to 1912. The poet had not accepted the validity of decisions made after that.
It is striking that you can date a poem. This implies that there are stylistic changes which are collective. The norms of poetry change in the same way that the norms of a language change. But, of course, that only applies to insiders – outsiders were certainly writing poems in the style of 1910 during the 1970s.
Another tile in the pattern involves someone called Herbert Palmer. After Michael Roberts did the Faber Book of Modern Verse, Palmer wrote a book called Post-Victorian Verse (1938). He rejected Roberts’ master pattern. He included 83 poets discarded by Roberts - a list which is a good way of defining what Roberts did to the collective map. (Of course, he also covers a dozen poets whom Roberts includes.) My point is that Palmer’s book is two years after Roberts’. So he could have erased Roberts’ intervention. But clearly Roberts won. In some way, he was more persuasive, more eligible, closer to the ideal for the role of artistic judge.
Who said yes to Roberts? I don't think I can prove that there was a democratic process by which people voluntarily gave assent. It just seems that that is the most plausible explanation. Roberts didn’t have any institutional standing, he didn’t have a job which gave him power over anybody’s career. He was legitimated by the audience, not by an institution.
I think Roberts won the day, but I think it happened slowly. Allott’s 1962 anthology completely accepted Roberts. I think he saves one of the 83 whom Palmer had championed. (That is Edward Thomas.) But that is the historical gaze, it doesn't mean they vanished quickly, in 1937 or 1938.
I just wanted to establish this idea of legislation changing the rules. I am not really getting into the question of outsiders who reject the rules because they didn’t take part in making them. My belief is that editors accept poets which they like, and that they can predict what their readers will like. Argument is unproductive – you need to write poems which editors enjoy. It’s all about pleasure. You are not going to win an argument.
I suspect that outsider poets think that editors don't have the right to dislike their poems.
There is this question about learning the big stylistic shifts of the 20th C, their spread over the landscape. For example, the abolition of rhetoric, the ascent of modernism, the rise of free verse, the enlistment in the Cold War, the rise of Pop hedonism, etc. There are significant blocs of people who rejected any one of these changes. Maybe all of them! But, if you were reading poetry all the time, as part of your stable life-style, you would assimilate these features directly. They would just flow into you. The act of reading poetry may be narcissistic, but it it is primarily dual – you experience what the poet experiences. This is assimilation. My impression is that my goal was to find out what these people thought and felt. I achieved that goal, but in doing so I became just like them. If we turn back to the stylistic legislation, it looks like a sediment which the insiders all share. (By sediment I mean something which is left behind by the flow of something which is flowing all the time. It is what poetry leaves behind in your brain.) We buy into the changes of taste. Secondly, the vanity community experience these rules as hostile and irrational. In fact, they may well think that they are superior, artistically, to the fêted and favoured poems. I don't want to get into the litigation process. Life’s too short. But a lot of would-be poets certainly reject the selection process, and the ‘legislation’ which underpins it. So, at some level, these aesthetic judgements are like court judgements – open to protest. I am more interested in how the rules are enacted and updated. This is quite hard to recover.
It may well be that successful poets have gone through a long process of looking at published poems, considering why editors liked them, and applying that learning to their own work. This may actually be why they are successful. When you ask “Is this line good?”, it is important to know the right answer. This presents poets as highly socialised, rather than being “rugged individualists”, but maybe art is a very social thing and the whole category of non-social people cannot write good poetry. The problem may be invisible to them. They may not know whether their work is out of date.
Just one quote! I picked up Yeats’ 1936 Oxford Book of Modern Verse, as a check. He has a poem by Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, starting:
He who has once been happy is for aye
Out of destruction's reach. His fortune then
Holds nothing secret, and Eternity,
Which is a mystery to other men,
Has like a woman given him its joy.
Clearly this is ridiculous now. And, it wasn’t ridiculous in 1936. If you posted such a poem to an editor today, in 2024, you would be laughed at. But, it is certain that people were still writing poems like this in the 1970s. It’s just that they weren’t getting into print. Maybe there were people who took Yeats as definitive and felt that Roberts was wrong – although collective taste has scrapped 90% of the poets whom Yeats picked up (and accepted almost all of Roberts’ picks). I apologise for quoting only one poem, when we could look at 1000 poems and still be finding new patterns. Blunt's poem does not rhyme because it is an imitation of Greek tragedy, whose verse does not rhyme.
I accept that poetry can be out of date. But, once you accept that, you accept that some agency can re-set norms. I believe that agency is the community of poetry readers. And I think their decisions are legitimate. But, at any stage, there is a category of people who write poetry but don’t identify with that community.
If you look at the vanity press sector, you find that the poets have ignored reforms made during the 20th C and are writing poetry which is out of date and which the contemporary audience just doesn't want. These are many people- I estimate that 1 in 3 of the poetry titles published in 1960 were vanity titles. There are several reforms which are basic to the scene. Clearly, the vanity poets, like other outsiders, reject these reforms – reject the right of editors (or, whoever it was!) to legislate such changes- and claim their right to protest and repeal these changes. It emerges, from the fact that the rules can be changed, that there are rules. This is what the chapter is about.
Moving away from vanity presses, it looks as if many under-published poets also regard the decisions of editors as enslaved to rules, and believe that those rules can be protested and repealed. I am more interested how the rules are enacted and updated. This is quite hard to recover. The indicative fact is someone publishing, in the 1970s, a book which adhered to styles which had been in fashion prior to 1912. The poet had not accepted the validity of decisions made after that.
It is striking that you can date a poem. This implies that there are stylistic changes which are collective. The norms of poetry change in the same way that the norms of a language change. But, of course, that only applies to insiders – outsiders were certainly writing poems in the style of 1910 during the 1970s.
Another tile in the pattern involves someone called Herbert Palmer. After Michael Roberts did the Faber Book of Modern Verse, Palmer wrote a book called Post-Victorian Verse (1938). He rejected Roberts’ master pattern. He included 83 poets discarded by Roberts - a list which is a good way of defining what Roberts did to the collective map. (Of course, he also covers a dozen poets whom Roberts includes.) My point is that Palmer’s book is two years after Roberts’. So he could have erased Roberts’ intervention. But clearly Roberts won. In some way, he was more persuasive, more eligible, closer to the ideal for the role of artistic judge.
Who said yes to Roberts? I don't think I can prove that there was a democratic process by which people voluntarily gave assent. It just seems that that is the most plausible explanation. Roberts didn’t have any institutional standing, he didn’t have a job which gave him power over anybody’s career. He was legitimated by the audience, not by an institution.
I think Roberts won the day, but I think it happened slowly. Allott’s 1962 anthology completely accepted Roberts. I think he saves one of the 83 whom Palmer had championed. (That is Edward Thomas.) But that is the historical gaze, it doesn't mean they vanished quickly, in 1937 or 1938.
I just wanted to establish this idea of legislation changing the rules. I am not really getting into the question of outsiders who reject the rules because they didn’t take part in making them. My belief is that editors accept poets which they like, and that they can predict what their readers will like. Argument is unproductive – you need to write poems which editors enjoy. It’s all about pleasure. You are not going to win an argument.
I suspect that outsider poets think that editors don't have the right to dislike their poems.
There is this question about learning the big stylistic shifts of the 20th C, their spread over the landscape. For example, the abolition of rhetoric, the ascent of modernism, the rise of free verse, the enlistment in the Cold War, the rise of Pop hedonism, etc. There are significant blocs of people who rejected any one of these changes. Maybe all of them! But, if you were reading poetry all the time, as part of your stable life-style, you would assimilate these features directly. They would just flow into you. The act of reading poetry may be narcissistic, but it it is primarily dual – you experience what the poet experiences. This is assimilation. My impression is that my goal was to find out what these people thought and felt. I achieved that goal, but in doing so I became just like them. If we turn back to the stylistic legislation, it looks like a sediment which the insiders all share. (By sediment I mean something which is left behind by the flow of something which is flowing all the time. It is what poetry leaves behind in your brain.) We buy into the changes of taste. Secondly, the vanity community experience these rules as hostile and irrational. In fact, they may well think that they are superior, artistically, to the fêted and favoured poems. I don't want to get into the litigation process. Life’s too short. But a lot of would-be poets certainly reject the selection process, and the ‘legislation’ which underpins it. So, at some level, these aesthetic judgements are like court judgements – open to protest. I am more interested in how the rules are enacted and updated. This is quite hard to recover.
It may well be that successful poets have gone through a long process of looking at published poems, considering why editors liked them, and applying that learning to their own work. This may actually be why they are successful. When you ask “Is this line good?”, it is important to know the right answer. This presents poets as highly socialised, rather than being “rugged individualists”, but maybe art is a very social thing and the whole category of non-social people cannot write good poetry. The problem may be invisible to them. They may not know whether their work is out of date.
Just one quote! I picked up Yeats’ 1936 Oxford Book of Modern Verse, as a check. He has a poem by Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, starting:
He who has once been happy is for aye
Out of destruction's reach. His fortune then
Holds nothing secret, and Eternity,
Which is a mystery to other men,
Has like a woman given him its joy.
Clearly this is ridiculous now. And, it wasn’t ridiculous in 1936. If you posted such a poem to an editor today, in 2024, you would be laughed at. But, it is certain that people were still writing poems like this in the 1970s. It’s just that they weren’t getting into print. Maybe there were people who took Yeats as definitive and felt that Roberts was wrong – although collective taste has scrapped 90% of the poets whom Yeats picked up (and accepted almost all of Roberts’ picks). I apologise for quoting only one poem, when we could look at 1000 poems and still be finding new patterns. Blunt's poem does not rhyme because it is an imitation of Greek tragedy, whose verse does not rhyme.
I accept that poetry can be out of date. But, once you accept that, you accept that some agency can re-set norms. I believe that agency is the community of poetry readers. And I think their decisions are legitimate. But, at any stage, there is a category of people who write poetry but don’t identify with that community.
Saturday 14 September 2024
doubts and corrections
Miscellaneous blog/ error list
After signing off the proofs, I have realised that I wrote ‘Nicholas Spicer’ when the real spelling is ‘Nicolas’. Oh, shit.
John Kozak has supplied some details on the technical software terms used by Kevin Nolan in ‘Orlick’. "p 56
plus the latest updates that find
DSO battle ideograms, changing value of 1004 DWORDS
The only "DWORD" I know of in IT speak is an old Microsoft Windows internal usage for "double word", i.e. 2x16 bit words.
"DSO" could be "dynamic shared object" [*], a file containing code and/or data which can be pulled in as a program is running. Such objects are typically used to extend or customise a program. For example, new icons or "skins" for a multiplayer game, "battle ideogram"?"
p 91
"Zeiss were a famous maker of lenses and optical equipment in Jena"
Still are, I think.
Actually, after 1946 there was a Zeiss firm in West Germany, while the original, in East Germany (and in Jena), was state-owned. So the tie to Jena is not totally accurate. Their cameras were all made in Dresden... but one could qualify this statement forever.
Ian Heames writes to say:
The three-part poem-designating numbers currently in place under the indented quotations are accurate, but since the same numbering system is used for all three sequences collected in Arrays (i.e. Array One, To, and A.I. In Daylight all run from 1.1.1 to 3.3.3), any given three-part number could equally lead a reader to more than one other text rather than the text being quoted from. It might therefore make sense to attribute the indented quotations as follows:
p. 260:
[2.1.1, p. 18 (Array One)]
p. 262:
[1.1.1, p. 9 (Array One)]
p. 263:
[2.1.3, p. 20 (Array One)]
With regards to including page numbers and sequence titles, either/or would work for navigating to the desired page, although including the sequence name might offer more of a bird's-eye view of the fact that the first of the three sequences in Arrays is the one principally under consideration.
If it'd also be possible for the attribution to follow after an empty line, to separate it from the poem text, that'd be appreciated, as the poems are choppy enough that un-spaced material could be mistaken for a continuation of the text itself.
For the same reason, I've used square brackets for the attributions above (since the poems themselves make use of round brackets, as in the example on your p. 262).
To triple-lock the disambiguation, the attribution line could perhaps in all cases also be deeper indented than the quoted text (as it is already on pp. 260 and 262, but not currently on p. 263).
I've also included very abbreviated references -- simply the page number in round brackets -- to the other, embedded, quotations, in case it'd be possible to add those in, as again that'd help a reader get to the material in question.
--
--
p. 261
"Intact RQ-170 Sentinel body image", twice. correct to:
"intact RQ-170 Sentinel body image", twice (pp. 16; 30).
[The intervention regarding the initial capital letter is simply so that the page references can follow in sequence order. On p. 30, the line starts with a capital letter, but not p. 16.]
--
“Exclusively peaceful metalloid cartouche butterfly” (p. 30)
--
‘recall how/ the RCP-120 would lose/ ammo to go clear”
correct to:
"recall how/ the RCP-120 would lose/ ammo to go clear” (p. 17)
[The quotation currently opens with a single rather than double inverted comma.]
--
My left thumb is so sore from tilting those worlds.
[Interesting to see this in italics! I really like the effect! With the formatting transformed, it's probably best left unattributed, so no intervention needed.]
--
p. 262
[first line of indented quotation:]
(
correct to:
)
[The round bracket should be closing rather than opening.]
--
The endpapers have a rather beautiful, originally painted, shimmering image
[That's nice of you to say! I should possibly mention that the endpapers were made in MS Paint, so 'digitally painted' might be a better fit than 'originally painted', but of course it's entirely your call!]
--
“orchid floods butterfly// orchid floods orchid/ with butterfly [...] it was a butterfly/ orchid” (p. 12)
--
“had had bliss from training/ had had bliss form/ seraphic droid epaulet” (p.10)
--
starting with "Omega chrome Blue"
correct to:
starting with "Omega Chrome Blue"
(end of email) (this arrived several weeks after the book had been printed) (do I want to supply page numbers for every poem...no)
After looking at Wayne Burrows’ website, I am inclined to say that I missed a nuance in his double-poem which combines the funeral of M Thatcher with the funeral of Kim Jong-Il. He records a report from the Korean Central News Agency which describes supernatural phenomena linked with the departure from mortal form of Kim Jong-Il – and suggests that a similar belief in miracles and the intervention of supernatural forces was a feature of the celebration by Tory press and politicians of Thatcher's transfiguration. Indeed, these speakers attributed economic miracles to Her intervention in our humble lives.
Today we stand in the glow of cleansing propaganda
while peculiar natural wonders are observed
on Mt. Paektu, Jong Il Peak
and Tonghung Hill in Hamhung City,
in the transparent glare of white light shining
from the stones of Parliament Square and Westminster.
At this point I feel that every sentence in the book could be more accurate. This is an unavoidable stage in the creation of a book, and of course the book would be twice as long if I re-explained everything.
Schubert. I blithely say that Schubert's music was designed for small, intimate, groups, but that could hardly be true of his Symphonies, and he wrote nine. A lot of his music was only heard in performance in small rooms for private parties, but not all. If he wrote very simple lieder, those could be delivered in concert-halls to large audiences, giving all those people the impression of intimacy. A lot of his music was published in his lifetime, even if he was so prolific that a lot of his music was not taken on by publishers (and was printed from manuscripts up to forty years after his death in 1828). The retreat to the small-scale is not directly or certainly linked to political oppression making the public realm gleaming and empty. The link is of a mythic kind. What I wrote captures the myth, I suppose. Mellors wrote a sequence of poems about an imaginary East German poet who wrote a sequence of poems adapting or parodying the sequence of poems which Schubert set to music as Die Winterreise, but really the work is not about East Germany or Schubert.
I say at p.83 that there are 84 poets in Identity Parade, but the real count is 85. I think there are very few mistakes in the text, after I spent a year editing it. The publisher sent me a spreadsheet of quotes I had used which had 116 rows... I took on a lot of different poets, and the logistics of that were formidable. I have just looked at an exercise I did to count how many of the IP poets had studied in some way at Oxford or Cambridge... I came to a figure of 27%. I suppose the great issue of our period, or perhaps only up until a few years ago, was the attack on meritocracy. The popularity of UKIP relied on channelling such an attack. Anyway, the figure of 27% shows a continuing reduction, as a share of the whole, so the "widening of the apex" which is my thesis. People now seem keen to suppress the fact that they were selected for a great university - I may have to abandon my count project, since if people are unhappy about their biography it is intrusive to probe into it. I suppose that, if you do well in an exam, you have concentrated for three hours. Most people can't do that. If you have high verbal intelligence and can concentrate for three hours, that would seem like good equipment for writing a poem. I think meritocracy is working really well for an increasing number of 18 year-olds - just not for all of them.
Info has come in from Wayne Burrows to the effect that there was a “break” in the central areas of poetry about ten years ago. A loss of confidence. This is what produced the present set-up, with its pluralism and lack of normative focal points. I find this interesting because there is a lack of dates in my account. I come up with a stretch of roughly 30 years without many events. Wayne came up with a change at Poetry Review (I think he said this but maybe I did) and a change at Faber, with them getting rid of a set of people and signing up Sam Riviere, who is conceptual and internet-oriented and altogether a new thing. So this is worth discussing.
My feel is that you could have a new-style Poetry Review because there were already hundreds of poets at work who were writing the poems which PR could pick up. So there was a process before that Event… arguably the process is big and the Event is small. And Faber are respected, but they are possibly 1% of the titles coming out. I am not sure if you can screen out the other 99% to any great extent. I can see that the version of P Review edited by Emily Berry was a breakthrough, but that was from 2015, I think, and there was a Maurice Riordan phase between Sampson leaving and Berry starting. I haven’t read the Riordan issues so I haven’t made my mind up. (There were a couple of guest editors too, like Bernardine Evaristo and Charles Boyle.) If I had to pick One Big Thing it would be the regime of Robert Potts and David Herd at Poetry Review. 2003-5, I think. They definitely caused shock and made Top People say “I’m not against change but you’re moving too fast”.
The version of the mainstream which I detest was breaking up during the 1980s… it just wasn't being taken up by younger poets. It didn’t just stop but it was fading, year by year. So I think there was a process of moving towards pluralism which involved the audience, and the poets, and the critics, and the publishers. And the retailers, I suppose. But I don’t see major events or things changing in a single year. It was a broad process. And I think pluralism is really stable. You knock it over and it still works a different way up.
If you accept that Emily Berry was a star editor, it might follow that she gives a misleading impression of sudden change and improvement. She didn’t write the poems, but she gave them the air, and other editors wouldn't do that. Conversely, someone else might want to give the impression that nothing was changing, so that older poets weren't slipping out of date and into inactivity. They would conceal underlying artistic changes. This is problematic. I think Berry was a star editor, so the conclusion might be that things hadn’t changed that much between 2010 and 2015.
Staring at individual poems in a magazine can be frustrating, as you don’t see any pattern at all. But if you read several hundred pages, a low-resolution pattern emerges. Probably. But with P Review, there are sudden changes when an editor leaves.
After signing off the proofs, I have realised that I wrote ‘Nicholas Spicer’ when the real spelling is ‘Nicolas’. Oh, shit.
John Kozak has supplied some details on the technical software terms used by Kevin Nolan in ‘Orlick’. "p 56
plus the latest updates that find
DSO battle ideograms, changing value of 1004 DWORDS
The only "DWORD" I know of in IT speak is an old Microsoft Windows internal usage for "double word", i.e. 2x16 bit words.
"DSO" could be "dynamic shared object" [*], a file containing code and/or data which can be pulled in as a program is running. Such objects are typically used to extend or customise a program. For example, new icons or "skins" for a multiplayer game, "battle ideogram"?"
p 91
"Zeiss were a famous maker of lenses and optical equipment in Jena"
Still are, I think.
Actually, after 1946 there was a Zeiss firm in West Germany, while the original, in East Germany (and in Jena), was state-owned. So the tie to Jena is not totally accurate. Their cameras were all made in Dresden... but one could qualify this statement forever.
Ian Heames writes to say:
The three-part poem-designating numbers currently in place under the indented quotations are accurate, but since the same numbering system is used for all three sequences collected in Arrays (i.e. Array One, To, and A.I. In Daylight all run from 1.1.1 to 3.3.3), any given three-part number could equally lead a reader to more than one other text rather than the text being quoted from. It might therefore make sense to attribute the indented quotations as follows:
p. 260:
[2.1.1, p. 18 (Array One)]
p. 262:
[1.1.1, p. 9 (Array One)]
p. 263:
[2.1.3, p. 20 (Array One)]
With regards to including page numbers and sequence titles, either/or would work for navigating to the desired page, although including the sequence name might offer more of a bird's-eye view of the fact that the first of the three sequences in Arrays is the one principally under consideration.
If it'd also be possible for the attribution to follow after an empty line, to separate it from the poem text, that'd be appreciated, as the poems are choppy enough that un-spaced material could be mistaken for a continuation of the text itself.
For the same reason, I've used square brackets for the attributions above (since the poems themselves make use of round brackets, as in the example on your p. 262).
To triple-lock the disambiguation, the attribution line could perhaps in all cases also be deeper indented than the quoted text (as it is already on pp. 260 and 262, but not currently on p. 263).
I've also included very abbreviated references -- simply the page number in round brackets -- to the other, embedded, quotations, in case it'd be possible to add those in, as again that'd help a reader get to the material in question.
--
--
p. 261
"Intact RQ-170 Sentinel body image", twice. correct to:
"intact RQ-170 Sentinel body image", twice (pp. 16; 30).
[The intervention regarding the initial capital letter is simply so that the page references can follow in sequence order. On p. 30, the line starts with a capital letter, but not p. 16.]
--
“Exclusively peaceful metalloid cartouche butterfly” (p. 30)
--
‘recall how/ the RCP-120 would lose/ ammo to go clear”
correct to:
"recall how/ the RCP-120 would lose/ ammo to go clear” (p. 17)
[The quotation currently opens with a single rather than double inverted comma.]
--
My left thumb is so sore from tilting those worlds.
[Interesting to see this in italics! I really like the effect! With the formatting transformed, it's probably best left unattributed, so no intervention needed.]
--
p. 262
[first line of indented quotation:]
(
correct to:
)
[The round bracket should be closing rather than opening.]
--
The endpapers have a rather beautiful, originally painted, shimmering image
[That's nice of you to say! I should possibly mention that the endpapers were made in MS Paint, so 'digitally painted' might be a better fit than 'originally painted', but of course it's entirely your call!]
--
“orchid floods butterfly// orchid floods orchid/ with butterfly [...] it was a butterfly/ orchid” (p. 12)
--
“had had bliss from training/ had had bliss form/ seraphic droid epaulet” (p.10)
--
starting with "Omega chrome Blue"
correct to:
starting with "Omega Chrome Blue"
(end of email) (this arrived several weeks after the book had been printed) (do I want to supply page numbers for every poem...no)
After looking at Wayne Burrows’ website, I am inclined to say that I missed a nuance in his double-poem which combines the funeral of M Thatcher with the funeral of Kim Jong-Il. He records a report from the Korean Central News Agency which describes supernatural phenomena linked with the departure from mortal form of Kim Jong-Il – and suggests that a similar belief in miracles and the intervention of supernatural forces was a feature of the celebration by Tory press and politicians of Thatcher's transfiguration. Indeed, these speakers attributed economic miracles to Her intervention in our humble lives.
Today we stand in the glow of cleansing propaganda
while peculiar natural wonders are observed
on Mt. Paektu, Jong Il Peak
and Tonghung Hill in Hamhung City,
in the transparent glare of white light shining
from the stones of Parliament Square and Westminster.
At this point I feel that every sentence in the book could be more accurate. This is an unavoidable stage in the creation of a book, and of course the book would be twice as long if I re-explained everything.
Schubert. I blithely say that Schubert's music was designed for small, intimate, groups, but that could hardly be true of his Symphonies, and he wrote nine. A lot of his music was only heard in performance in small rooms for private parties, but not all. If he wrote very simple lieder, those could be delivered in concert-halls to large audiences, giving all those people the impression of intimacy. A lot of his music was published in his lifetime, even if he was so prolific that a lot of his music was not taken on by publishers (and was printed from manuscripts up to forty years after his death in 1828). The retreat to the small-scale is not directly or certainly linked to political oppression making the public realm gleaming and empty. The link is of a mythic kind. What I wrote captures the myth, I suppose. Mellors wrote a sequence of poems about an imaginary East German poet who wrote a sequence of poems adapting or parodying the sequence of poems which Schubert set to music as Die Winterreise, but really the work is not about East Germany or Schubert.
I say at p.83 that there are 84 poets in Identity Parade, but the real count is 85. I think there are very few mistakes in the text, after I spent a year editing it. The publisher sent me a spreadsheet of quotes I had used which had 116 rows... I took on a lot of different poets, and the logistics of that were formidable. I have just looked at an exercise I did to count how many of the IP poets had studied in some way at Oxford or Cambridge... I came to a figure of 27%. I suppose the great issue of our period, or perhaps only up until a few years ago, was the attack on meritocracy. The popularity of UKIP relied on channelling such an attack. Anyway, the figure of 27% shows a continuing reduction, as a share of the whole, so the "widening of the apex" which is my thesis. People now seem keen to suppress the fact that they were selected for a great university - I may have to abandon my count project, since if people are unhappy about their biography it is intrusive to probe into it. I suppose that, if you do well in an exam, you have concentrated for three hours. Most people can't do that. If you have high verbal intelligence and can concentrate for three hours, that would seem like good equipment for writing a poem. I think meritocracy is working really well for an increasing number of 18 year-olds - just not for all of them.
Info has come in from Wayne Burrows to the effect that there was a “break” in the central areas of poetry about ten years ago. A loss of confidence. This is what produced the present set-up, with its pluralism and lack of normative focal points. I find this interesting because there is a lack of dates in my account. I come up with a stretch of roughly 30 years without many events. Wayne came up with a change at Poetry Review (I think he said this but maybe I did) and a change at Faber, with them getting rid of a set of people and signing up Sam Riviere, who is conceptual and internet-oriented and altogether a new thing. So this is worth discussing.
My feel is that you could have a new-style Poetry Review because there were already hundreds of poets at work who were writing the poems which PR could pick up. So there was a process before that Event… arguably the process is big and the Event is small. And Faber are respected, but they are possibly 1% of the titles coming out. I am not sure if you can screen out the other 99% to any great extent. I can see that the version of P Review edited by Emily Berry was a breakthrough, but that was from 2015, I think, and there was a Maurice Riordan phase between Sampson leaving and Berry starting. I haven’t read the Riordan issues so I haven’t made my mind up. (There were a couple of guest editors too, like Bernardine Evaristo and Charles Boyle.) If I had to pick One Big Thing it would be the regime of Robert Potts and David Herd at Poetry Review. 2003-5, I think. They definitely caused shock and made Top People say “I’m not against change but you’re moving too fast”.
The version of the mainstream which I detest was breaking up during the 1980s… it just wasn't being taken up by younger poets. It didn’t just stop but it was fading, year by year. So I think there was a process of moving towards pluralism which involved the audience, and the poets, and the critics, and the publishers. And the retailers, I suppose. But I don’t see major events or things changing in a single year. It was a broad process. And I think pluralism is really stable. You knock it over and it still works a different way up.
If you accept that Emily Berry was a star editor, it might follow that she gives a misleading impression of sudden change and improvement. She didn’t write the poems, but she gave them the air, and other editors wouldn't do that. Conversely, someone else might want to give the impression that nothing was changing, so that older poets weren't slipping out of date and into inactivity. They would conceal underlying artistic changes. This is problematic. I think Berry was a star editor, so the conclusion might be that things hadn’t changed that much between 2010 and 2015.
Staring at individual poems in a magazine can be frustrating, as you don’t see any pattern at all. But if you read several hundred pages, a low-resolution pattern emerges. Probably. But with P Review, there are sudden changes when an editor leaves.
Friday 30 August 2024
chapter list
Beautiful Things Happening To Sensitive People
Screen grabs of British poetry in the 21st century
due out from Shearsman amazingly soon
sneak preview of chapter list
Introduction
Generalisations about the poetry world
Theories of style time
Language is made of rules
Foundation Texts (Loving Little Orlick; Ffynhonnau Uchel; Englaland; Incendium Amoris; Cloud. A coffee cantata)
Identification
Their Trajectory Was Just Large (Flatlands; Terrain Seed Scarcity; Implacable Art; Unsung; Birdhouse; a.m.; The President of Earth; The Itchy Sea; Capital; The Hutton Inquiry; Natural Histories; Vacation of a Lifetime; Andraste's Hair; Galatea; The Missing; The Midlands; The Land of Green Ginger)
Cultural Asset Management
Verticegarden (Octet; Nekorb)
Insignificance; or, Structure Engulfed by Surface
Poems On Communal Wellbeing (Songs for Eurydice; Black Sun; Winstanley; Surge)
Local Knowledge (Birds of the Sherborne Missal; A Portland Triptych)
Serial: Lost In Data Labyrinths (The School of Forgery; Winter Journey; Exotica Suite)
Short Strings, Polyrecombinant (Duetcetera)
Splendours And Chagrins (Rendang; Plague Lands and other poems; Amnion; Katabasis; Writing The Camp)
Devolution/ Disassembly:
Anglo-Welsh (Edge of Necessary; stenia cultus handbook; Keinc; King Driftwood)
Scottish poets (Zonda? Khamsin? Sharaav? Camanchaca?; Hand Over Mouth Music; Florilegium; The Sleep Road; makar /unmakar)
British South Asian poets (Brilliant Corners; Small Hands; The Voice Of Sheila Chandra; The Routines)
West-bloc dissidents: alternative poetry (Arrays; Lines on the Surface; INSTANT-fLEX 718)
Triumphs And Panics (Ephemeris; False Flags; Somnia; Makers Of Empty Dreams; Forms of Protest; Self Heal; The Cook's Wedding)
The Human Voice (rabbit; Beautiful Girls; Venusberg; Rookie; Soft Sift; Kim Kardashian's Marriage)
Pistachio Euphoria Sorbet (the arboretum towards the beginning; Leave Bambi Alone)
Sociolinguistics (Tippoo Sultan's Incredible White-Man-Eating Tiger Toy‑Machine!!!; Wilia; Knitting drum machines for exiled tongues; Northern Alchemy; Unquiet)
Privatisation And Religion (The Palace of Oblivion; Ascension Notes; Monica’s Overcoat Of Flesh; Stranger In The Mask Of A Deer)
Land And Sea (Disappearance; Green Noise; Continental Drift; Else)
Bibliography
Screen grabs of British poetry in the 21st century
due out from Shearsman amazingly soon
sneak preview of chapter list
Introduction
Generalisations about the poetry world
Theories of style time
Language is made of rules
Foundation Texts (Loving Little Orlick; Ffynhonnau Uchel; Englaland; Incendium Amoris; Cloud. A coffee cantata)
Identification
Their Trajectory Was Just Large (Flatlands; Terrain Seed Scarcity; Implacable Art; Unsung; Birdhouse; a.m.; The President of Earth; The Itchy Sea; Capital; The Hutton Inquiry; Natural Histories; Vacation of a Lifetime; Andraste's Hair; Galatea; The Missing; The Midlands; The Land of Green Ginger)
Cultural Asset Management
Verticegarden (Octet; Nekorb)
Insignificance; or, Structure Engulfed by Surface
Poems On Communal Wellbeing (Songs for Eurydice; Black Sun; Winstanley; Surge)
Local Knowledge (Birds of the Sherborne Missal; A Portland Triptych)
Serial: Lost In Data Labyrinths (The School of Forgery; Winter Journey; Exotica Suite)
Short Strings, Polyrecombinant (Duetcetera)
Splendours And Chagrins (Rendang; Plague Lands and other poems; Amnion; Katabasis; Writing The Camp)
Devolution/ Disassembly:
Anglo-Welsh (Edge of Necessary; stenia cultus handbook; Keinc; King Driftwood)
Scottish poets (Zonda? Khamsin? Sharaav? Camanchaca?; Hand Over Mouth Music; Florilegium; The Sleep Road; makar /unmakar)
British South Asian poets (Brilliant Corners; Small Hands; The Voice Of Sheila Chandra; The Routines)
West-bloc dissidents: alternative poetry (Arrays; Lines on the Surface; INSTANT-fLEX 718)
Triumphs And Panics (Ephemeris; False Flags; Somnia; Makers Of Empty Dreams; Forms of Protest; Self Heal; The Cook's Wedding)
The Human Voice (rabbit; Beautiful Girls; Venusberg; Rookie; Soft Sift; Kim Kardashian's Marriage)
Pistachio Euphoria Sorbet (the arboretum towards the beginning; Leave Bambi Alone)
Sociolinguistics (Tippoo Sultan's Incredible White-Man-Eating Tiger Toy‑Machine!!!; Wilia; Knitting drum machines for exiled tongues; Northern Alchemy; Unquiet)
Privatisation And Religion (The Palace of Oblivion; Ascension Notes; Monica’s Overcoat Of Flesh; Stranger In The Mask Of A Deer)
Land And Sea (Disappearance; Green Noise; Continental Drift; Else)
Bibliography
Tuesday 27 August 2024
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.
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.
Thursday 15 August 2024
Beautiful Feelings - footnote
Autism was defined clinically by two people, Kanner and Asperger. I wrote about Haley Jenkins, an autistic poet, in my new book. Her book is nekorb. One of the psychiatrists was in the USA, and the other was in Vienna and delivered “incurable” children over to the SS for eugenic murder. I found out at about 9 pm Iast night (in June 2023) that I had got the names the wrong way round – exchanging Kanner for Asperger. This is catastrophic. I was quite distracted by the need to fix the text and I have done so now.
I was interested to discover that the accepted version, whereby Kanner and Asperger discovered the same cluster of symptoms independently, and Lorna Wing put the two patterns together in 1981, to create the modern theory, is wrong. Two Jewish doctors, Weiss and Frankl, were working and researching in Asperger’s clinic and fled to the USA. And there they worked for Leo Kanner. One of them had published the pioneer paper on autism, not yet called that, in 1935. Kanner never mentions this, but he must have heard these ideas, and so he must have known what Asperger had discovered. But it is not certain that the breakthrough is due to Asperger (rather than to Anni Weiss and Georg Frankl, or perhaps a group study at the Heilpädagogik clinic).
Asperger's famous paper only dealt with highly functional people on the spectrum. Steve Silberman suggests that, in 1944, the need was to protect the subjects from eugenic murder, and so that he picked out the rather functioning children, and left out anybody lower down the spectrum. So there is no separate Asperger’s Syndrome, it is just a spectrum, and always was.
I found out today that the + marks in Jenkins’ poem relate to marks which Asperger made on notes delivered to the killing-clinic - + meant “incurable” and this meant in context “give this child a lethal injection”. Interesting, but how on earth would you know this unless you have actually read about that exact phase of history.
have you heard of our neurotribe?
to create concrete Utopias
drill it like cars or copper
unconscious need to be created
in mid-walk
at the end of each trip
you get back to dream-work
- I don’t know what this means, but that is exactly like any other book from Veer. I don’t think you can describe every avant garde poet as autistic. Just because they don’t care whether you can understand them or not.
“While Catel conveniently went on vacation, one of his subordinates murdered the baby with an injection as the nurses took their coffee break.” - - the baby mentioned was Gerhard Kretschmar. The last 7 words are also the title of one of Jenkins’ poems.
It may be helpful to quote a article in Molecular Autism:
"We will not repeat the evidence and main findings of Herwig Czech’s article here but will note that the conclusion concur with a new book on this topic, published in 2018, by Edith Sheffer, and entitled Asperger’s Children: The origins of autism in Nazi Vienna. Like Czech, Sheffer compellingly makes the case that Asperger willingly became a cog in the Nazi killing machine, referring children both directly and indirectly to Am Spiegelgrund.
Sheffer, following Steve Silberman and John Elder Robison, also mentions the fact that Georg Frankl, a staff physician at the clinic, and the psychologist Anni Weiss, had already published on cases similar to those later described as “autistic psychopaths” before Asperger. Because Frankl and Weiss were Jewish, they were forced to leave Austria and went to the US, where they married shortly after their arrival. As Asperger's understanding of autism surely drew on their work and observations, and later helped inspire Lorna Wing to define the scope of the autism spectrum, Frankl and Weiss deserve credit for contributing to the modern understanding of autism."
A review of Edith Sheffer's book in the Daily Mail on-line reports "And yet Asperger encouraged other doctors to refer children to Spiegelgrund and he even sent patients there directly from his own clinic. He was a close colleague of Erwin Jekelius, who began the war as director of the Steinhof asylum, where he oversaw the deaths of around 4,000 adults judged superfluous to Nazi requirements.
Jekelius’s activities were notorious. In October 1940, a demonstration outside the Steinhof was broken up by the police and the SS. Even the British knew what he was doing. The RAF dropped leaflets on Vienna in September 1941, warning citizens: ‘Jekelius haunts the corridors of Steinhof… in a white doctor’s coat with his syringe. He does not bring new life to the ill, but death.’
I was interested to discover that the accepted version, whereby Kanner and Asperger discovered the same cluster of symptoms independently, and Lorna Wing put the two patterns together in 1981, to create the modern theory, is wrong. Two Jewish doctors, Weiss and Frankl, were working and researching in Asperger’s clinic and fled to the USA. And there they worked for Leo Kanner. One of them had published the pioneer paper on autism, not yet called that, in 1935. Kanner never mentions this, but he must have heard these ideas, and so he must have known what Asperger had discovered. But it is not certain that the breakthrough is due to Asperger (rather than to Anni Weiss and Georg Frankl, or perhaps a group study at the Heilpädagogik clinic).
Asperger's famous paper only dealt with highly functional people on the spectrum. Steve Silberman suggests that, in 1944, the need was to protect the subjects from eugenic murder, and so that he picked out the rather functioning children, and left out anybody lower down the spectrum. So there is no separate Asperger’s Syndrome, it is just a spectrum, and always was.
I found out today that the + marks in Jenkins’ poem relate to marks which Asperger made on notes delivered to the killing-clinic - + meant “incurable” and this meant in context “give this child a lethal injection”. Interesting, but how on earth would you know this unless you have actually read about that exact phase of history.
have you heard of our neurotribe?
to create concrete Utopias
drill it like cars or copper
unconscious need to be created
in mid-walk
at the end of each trip
you get back to dream-work
- I don’t know what this means, but that is exactly like any other book from Veer. I don’t think you can describe every avant garde poet as autistic. Just because they don’t care whether you can understand them or not.
“While Catel conveniently went on vacation, one of his subordinates murdered the baby with an injection as the nurses took their coffee break.” - - the baby mentioned was Gerhard Kretschmar. The last 7 words are also the title of one of Jenkins’ poems.
It may be helpful to quote a article in Molecular Autism:
"We will not repeat the evidence and main findings of Herwig Czech’s article here but will note that the conclusion concur with a new book on this topic, published in 2018, by Edith Sheffer, and entitled Asperger’s Children: The origins of autism in Nazi Vienna. Like Czech, Sheffer compellingly makes the case that Asperger willingly became a cog in the Nazi killing machine, referring children both directly and indirectly to Am Spiegelgrund.
Sheffer, following Steve Silberman and John Elder Robison, also mentions the fact that Georg Frankl, a staff physician at the clinic, and the psychologist Anni Weiss, had already published on cases similar to those later described as “autistic psychopaths” before Asperger. Because Frankl and Weiss were Jewish, they were forced to leave Austria and went to the US, where they married shortly after their arrival. As Asperger's understanding of autism surely drew on their work and observations, and later helped inspire Lorna Wing to define the scope of the autism spectrum, Frankl and Weiss deserve credit for contributing to the modern understanding of autism."
A review of Edith Sheffer's book in the Daily Mail on-line reports "And yet Asperger encouraged other doctors to refer children to Spiegelgrund and he even sent patients there directly from his own clinic. He was a close colleague of Erwin Jekelius, who began the war as director of the Steinhof asylum, where he oversaw the deaths of around 4,000 adults judged superfluous to Nazi requirements.
Jekelius’s activities were notorious. In October 1940, a demonstration outside the Steinhof was broken up by the police and the SS. Even the British knew what he was doing. The RAF dropped leaflets on Vienna in September 1941, warning citizens: ‘Jekelius haunts the corridors of Steinhof… in a white doctor’s coat with his syringe. He does not bring new life to the ill, but death.’
Saturday 10 August 2024
Beautiful Feelings – another blog
We are still (30/07/24) in the stage of acquiring permissions to use quotes. (I think we started on 9 May, based on file creation dates.) Much argument in the past few days about the spelling of Shetlandic. This is exhausting. I can deal with people saying no but it is harder where people don’t reply at all. After all, we need all the permissions. If three are missing we can't publish the book at all. The old Society of Authors guidelines were clear but the new ones are vague to the point of being unusable. Tony found some guidelines which we could apply, but unfortunately they added eleven more poets whom I had thought we didn’t need to contact. The book was announced for July, but it is hard to foresee when we will complete, evidently not before the end of university holidays, when people not opening emails will come back from the seaside and start opening them. I am very busy rewriting pieces to remove the quotes and replace them with analytical descriptions. The problem is less with people saying no than with people “off the scene” whom we can’t contact and can’t get consents out of.
Update 10/8/24. We only have one permission left now, and Tony is keen to give up on that if we don’t get a reply by Monday. I spent yesterday writing extra text to fill in if we don’t get a reply and so can’t use the quotes.
I disgraced myself by giving a wrong gloss to one of the Shetlandic words. ‘ayre’ which I thought was ‘earth’ (which woud be ‘yird’) but is actually a shingle beach, and probably cognate with the eyr in Eyrbyggjasaga, a story about the dwellers in Snæfellsnes, a ness in Iceland. I couldn’t find this in the Scots Thesaurus, but it does say that ‘shingle’ can be either ‘chingle’ or ‘jingle’.
Sledmere replied with an agreement, fortunately, saying “I enjoyed reading this. Some context for Leave Bambi Alone was that it was written almost entirely on Christmas Day while staying at the family home of a former lover's. The re-gendering of Bambi was deliberate (something I play with in another unpublished work). I have never seen Meet Me in St. Louis! Possibly because I am somewhat allergic to musicals… But! I enjoy a love story.”
She can’t have written 1600 lines all in one day, but anyway this detail points to a completely new approach to the gap between everyday life and a text, which is also a different sense of time. Personally I think this new approach is completely successful. The task for a critic is to adjust the collective sense so that it is running at the right speed and can accept the poetry… no good playing a 33 1/3 record at 45 rpm. This new Scottish thing and the work of British Asian poets are the two new things which I have found. They are new islands, as opposed to plants on an existing island evolving into new forms. I have to add that the British Asian poets are very diverse from each other, my point is simply that these are ways of conducting the text which weren't around in the 1990s and aren't just variants of something else. I don’t want to say “this is what’s happening” and so make everything else look unimportant, but something has changed.
I saw some discussion in an on-line forum, about Poetry Review in fact. What I saw was a very wide diversity of opinions but also ideas about other people on the scene, about the scene as a set of several thousand people, which were very non-factual.
One of the contributors regretted that modern poetry had lost connection with traditional poetry. He basically couldn't read modern poetry and was still hearing the patterns of nineteenth-century verse. Modern poems were failed traditional poems, in the way he heard them. “I try as hard as possible to extend maximal charity to those with different tastes than my own, on the presumption that they see things I miss, but it does seem a shame that a body with such an explicit mission to promote the totality of poetry elevates so strongly forms that have cut ties with essentially all English verse prior to about 1920 and much of what comes after.” The situation here is that there was a new set of patterns, around 1925 or even 1910, and most people absorbed them and actually became able to hear new patterns as meaningful. And poets in 2024, or years leading up to 2024, write in new patterns expecting that readers are going to be able to follow them. I just find it baffling that someone is so rigid that they can’t learn new patterns, even after 100 years. But maybe it’s even simpler, this person never reads modern poetry and actually never has read it. They want to make massive generalisations about modern poetry and they have never read an entire book of it.
I think if you read modern poetry you just soak up the patterns, but the flaw in that is that someone who never starts doesn't get very far. And the flaw in explaining modern poetry is that people quite probably won’t read the explanations. So here you have someone who wants to cling onto their ignorance as if to some colony. Would you ask TV to preserve all the conventions of theatre as it was in 1920? I don’t suppose you would. Anyway, the count of people who read books but can’t read modern poetry is probably larger than the number of people who read modern poetry.
The on-line discussion was about dissatisfaction with Poetry Review, and surprisingly the topic was not how middle of the road it was, but how specialised and extreme it was, and how they couldn't follow the poems. So possibly the centre of poetry, where the management sit, is surrounded by a dozen or so areas of people who feel cut off and ignored. And where I would incline to see “the mainstream” as one unified thing, whose priority is to simplify and to remove deep context, the people in this forum saw it as the product of 50 years of innovation, and they wanted the scene to return to where it was before this kind of modernity had come on stage. And, where the range of poetry being published is so vast that it seems everyone can migrate to the area which suits them down to the tiniest detail, there is a set of people who are unhappy with what they read, feel frustrated, and don’t know where to find what they like.
I have been analysing events as a process in which people pursue their tastes, the field subdivides, poetry becomes more specialised and more consistent in satisfying its own market, and everything gets more and more evolved. But a forum like this shows people finding difficulty with the poems they are seeing, and wanting something less specialised and more mundane. Where arts administrators like poems to be about identity politics, and to explore the existential situation of, let’s say, a transgender person, as a privileged outcome, because that offers a depth of unfamiliar experience, some readers may find the unfamiliar life situation baffling and repellent, and wish for something much less dense in information. And easier to get at. Some readers may wish for more respect for privacy in a poem, less psychological revelation. And, in line with that, they may wish for a poem to have less artistic depth, and to be less evolved in its direction.
It looks as if some of the market defines ‘identity poems’ as “a film in which one character does not stick to their lines but makes up endless new lines so that none of the other characters gets a chance to speak”. After a while, that single voice becomes irritating and you would do anything to have it shift to someone else. The idea that exposure to one character gives a deeper and more involving experience does not work for them. They would prefer less depth and more variety. The proposal of briefly becoming someone whose experience is quite unlike theirs does not sell to them. They would rather not make that effort and they rather resent it.
I can’t exploit this, because I so much like poetry moving in the opposite direction. My point is more that the market is radically divided and there is no consensus for me to describe, or critique either. I would like to write a book for everybody, but you can't record a consensus if there isn’t one. So I guess my book can work as providing better information, which may displease some of the participants but which will move the arguments on in every case.
I looked again at the on-line accounts of the 2013 plagiarism scandal (or scandals). They are extremely satisfactory and there is no point me rehashing the story. One chat site has some unreflected comments (so nothing like a good source account) on the plagiarism of Matthew Welton’s great poems, where one of their people says “It seemed like a lot more than merely the insertion of synonyms. The ... er ... revised poem was quite a bit better than the drab thing the original author wrote. Not great but better.” This is such an unexpected reaction. The commentator also says in rather a snitty way that poems like this invite plagiarism. I have no idea what that means. I am quoting this just to show how diverse reactions are. To repeat myself, I can’t tell people how they are going to react so my criticism has to have more modest goals.
I notice Ira told me “I've not done much anti plagiarism work since [...]2016.” So the lack of new uncoverings since then may be due to lack of economic investment. But what I conclude from Ira’s amazing detective work is that maybe 5 in 1000 visible poets were copying/ abusing when a powerful lens was applied. And those 5 all stopped. So it isn’t a big problem.
One of the people generally conceded to have copied is quoted on the internet saying he has written 500 poems in the last eight or nine years, and he doesn't want to face the chore of going back and determining which ones he hadn’t written (& which ones he had, obviously). This just goes to show what strange states of mind people wander into. 500 poems? What for?
Update 10/8/24. We only have one permission left now, and Tony is keen to give up on that if we don’t get a reply by Monday. I spent yesterday writing extra text to fill in if we don’t get a reply and so can’t use the quotes.
I disgraced myself by giving a wrong gloss to one of the Shetlandic words. ‘ayre’ which I thought was ‘earth’ (which woud be ‘yird’) but is actually a shingle beach, and probably cognate with the eyr in Eyrbyggjasaga, a story about the dwellers in Snæfellsnes, a ness in Iceland. I couldn’t find this in the Scots Thesaurus, but it does say that ‘shingle’ can be either ‘chingle’ or ‘jingle’.
Sledmere replied with an agreement, fortunately, saying “I enjoyed reading this. Some context for Leave Bambi Alone was that it was written almost entirely on Christmas Day while staying at the family home of a former lover's. The re-gendering of Bambi was deliberate (something I play with in another unpublished work). I have never seen Meet Me in St. Louis! Possibly because I am somewhat allergic to musicals… But! I enjoy a love story.”
She can’t have written 1600 lines all in one day, but anyway this detail points to a completely new approach to the gap between everyday life and a text, which is also a different sense of time. Personally I think this new approach is completely successful. The task for a critic is to adjust the collective sense so that it is running at the right speed and can accept the poetry… no good playing a 33 1/3 record at 45 rpm. This new Scottish thing and the work of British Asian poets are the two new things which I have found. They are new islands, as opposed to plants on an existing island evolving into new forms. I have to add that the British Asian poets are very diverse from each other, my point is simply that these are ways of conducting the text which weren't around in the 1990s and aren't just variants of something else. I don’t want to say “this is what’s happening” and so make everything else look unimportant, but something has changed.
I saw some discussion in an on-line forum, about Poetry Review in fact. What I saw was a very wide diversity of opinions but also ideas about other people on the scene, about the scene as a set of several thousand people, which were very non-factual.
One of the contributors regretted that modern poetry had lost connection with traditional poetry. He basically couldn't read modern poetry and was still hearing the patterns of nineteenth-century verse. Modern poems were failed traditional poems, in the way he heard them. “I try as hard as possible to extend maximal charity to those with different tastes than my own, on the presumption that they see things I miss, but it does seem a shame that a body with such an explicit mission to promote the totality of poetry elevates so strongly forms that have cut ties with essentially all English verse prior to about 1920 and much of what comes after.” The situation here is that there was a new set of patterns, around 1925 or even 1910, and most people absorbed them and actually became able to hear new patterns as meaningful. And poets in 2024, or years leading up to 2024, write in new patterns expecting that readers are going to be able to follow them. I just find it baffling that someone is so rigid that they can’t learn new patterns, even after 100 years. But maybe it’s even simpler, this person never reads modern poetry and actually never has read it. They want to make massive generalisations about modern poetry and they have never read an entire book of it.
I think if you read modern poetry you just soak up the patterns, but the flaw in that is that someone who never starts doesn't get very far. And the flaw in explaining modern poetry is that people quite probably won’t read the explanations. So here you have someone who wants to cling onto their ignorance as if to some colony. Would you ask TV to preserve all the conventions of theatre as it was in 1920? I don’t suppose you would. Anyway, the count of people who read books but can’t read modern poetry is probably larger than the number of people who read modern poetry.
The on-line discussion was about dissatisfaction with Poetry Review, and surprisingly the topic was not how middle of the road it was, but how specialised and extreme it was, and how they couldn't follow the poems. So possibly the centre of poetry, where the management sit, is surrounded by a dozen or so areas of people who feel cut off and ignored. And where I would incline to see “the mainstream” as one unified thing, whose priority is to simplify and to remove deep context, the people in this forum saw it as the product of 50 years of innovation, and they wanted the scene to return to where it was before this kind of modernity had come on stage. And, where the range of poetry being published is so vast that it seems everyone can migrate to the area which suits them down to the tiniest detail, there is a set of people who are unhappy with what they read, feel frustrated, and don’t know where to find what they like.
I have been analysing events as a process in which people pursue their tastes, the field subdivides, poetry becomes more specialised and more consistent in satisfying its own market, and everything gets more and more evolved. But a forum like this shows people finding difficulty with the poems they are seeing, and wanting something less specialised and more mundane. Where arts administrators like poems to be about identity politics, and to explore the existential situation of, let’s say, a transgender person, as a privileged outcome, because that offers a depth of unfamiliar experience, some readers may find the unfamiliar life situation baffling and repellent, and wish for something much less dense in information. And easier to get at. Some readers may wish for more respect for privacy in a poem, less psychological revelation. And, in line with that, they may wish for a poem to have less artistic depth, and to be less evolved in its direction.
It looks as if some of the market defines ‘identity poems’ as “a film in which one character does not stick to their lines but makes up endless new lines so that none of the other characters gets a chance to speak”. After a while, that single voice becomes irritating and you would do anything to have it shift to someone else. The idea that exposure to one character gives a deeper and more involving experience does not work for them. They would prefer less depth and more variety. The proposal of briefly becoming someone whose experience is quite unlike theirs does not sell to them. They would rather not make that effort and they rather resent it.
I can’t exploit this, because I so much like poetry moving in the opposite direction. My point is more that the market is radically divided and there is no consensus for me to describe, or critique either. I would like to write a book for everybody, but you can't record a consensus if there isn’t one. So I guess my book can work as providing better information, which may displease some of the participants but which will move the arguments on in every case.
I looked again at the on-line accounts of the 2013 plagiarism scandal (or scandals). They are extremely satisfactory and there is no point me rehashing the story. One chat site has some unreflected comments (so nothing like a good source account) on the plagiarism of Matthew Welton’s great poems, where one of their people says “It seemed like a lot more than merely the insertion of synonyms. The ... er ... revised poem was quite a bit better than the drab thing the original author wrote. Not great but better.” This is such an unexpected reaction. The commentator also says in rather a snitty way that poems like this invite plagiarism. I have no idea what that means. I am quoting this just to show how diverse reactions are. To repeat myself, I can’t tell people how they are going to react so my criticism has to have more modest goals.
I notice Ira told me “I've not done much anti plagiarism work since [...]2016.” So the lack of new uncoverings since then may be due to lack of economic investment. But what I conclude from Ira’s amazing detective work is that maybe 5 in 1000 visible poets were copying/ abusing when a powerful lens was applied. And those 5 all stopped. So it isn’t a big problem.
One of the people generally conceded to have copied is quoted on the internet saying he has written 500 poems in the last eight or nine years, and he doesn't want to face the chore of going back and determining which ones he hadn’t written (& which ones he had, obviously). This just goes to show what strange states of mind people wander into. 500 poems? What for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)