Skip to main content

The Next Poet Laureate?

For those aware of the "divide" in British poetry, between a mainstream and a less main one, nothing is as likely to provoke gnashing of teeth than the Poet Laureate position - and those opposed to the Monarchy and British-Empire trappings might also be known to wail, too. One of the less-attractive elements of the world today, is that the media feeds us little literary stories we don't need, all-too-often, as if to remind us that we still love poetry (though "we" don't: there is no mass consumer interest in serious poetry anymore by contemporary figures).

The latest travesty in this department issued from The Observer yesterday (which, in the 60s really engaged seriously with poetry), who weighed in on the imminent retirement, after a good decade, of Andrew Motion as Blair's laureate. One wants to sigh, the "nice decade is over". Of course, Blair torpedoed Carol Ann-Duffy's boat last time, we are told in this creepy article, because of her lifestyle (lesbian, with a young child) - and it is somehow suggested all is forgiven, now - not because Brown has different values, but because Duffy is no longer in such a high-profile relationship - all spurious, too-personal, and rather offensive. Though, sad, if true - no laureate should be deslected, obviously, due to their sex, gender or faith (well, they no doubt would have to convert, like lovely Autumn Kelly from my home town of Montreal). Motion retires in 2009, so this is hardly a story now. But the article goes on to suggest the three front-runners are Duffy, Simon Armitage (44, ages are provided for some reason), and James Fenton (59). All three read for the Oxfam Life Lines series and CDs, and write very well. It's hard to suggest these are not worthy candidates. Other "popular" "female poets" are then mentioned, like Wendy Cope and Jenny Joseph. However, the part that struck me as overstated was this: "many of Britain and Ireland's reigning literary titans are men, among them (Craig) Raine, Seamus Heaney, Don Paterson and James Fenton". I am not sure Paterson, still relatively young, is a "literary titan" (yet) - and his colleague Sean O'Brien would, I am sure, have thought that list might include him too.

But, rather more glaringly, the list removed any sense of controversy, debate, or uncertainty as to the current UK canon - the sort of annoying "naturalising" that happens when the mainstream press treats poetry like horse racing, or celebrity chef TV. Where, for instance, is Geoffrey Hill, in this list? He actually believes in God and England, doesn't he? Well, maybe too much. Where is J.H. Prynne - isn't he titanic, too? Too left-leaning, one supposes, for The Observer's tastes. Where are Britain's superb Asian and Black poets? They haven't yet made this odd little titan list. Oh, well. In the meantime, having a female Poet Laureate would be a good thing.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Todd, I notice you don't name 'Britain's superb Asian and black poets'. I'm not for one minute suggesting there are none, but you don't seem sure yourself. Are there any who would combine kudos, clubability and critical acclaim? What do you reckon?

And Prynne and politics? This is a cross-Atlantic minefield... is Prynne left-wing? How, why, when, what is the evidence? The US experimental wing has for a long time tried to equate left wing with innovative and right wing with traditional / formal, but we just don't sink that low here, thank you. Who wants to knock on Peter Reading's or CA Duffy's or Tony Harrison's door and tell them they are Tories because they are not avant garde?

Roddy
EYEWEAR said…
Roddy - you don't sink that low here? - have you read Sean Bonney or Terry Eagleton lately? But, yes, I agree - form and ideology are complex bedfellows.

As for not naming the Asian and Black "titans" - or poets worthy of a laureateship, now or in future, I didn't have time to do so, but a few names come to mind: Fred D'Aguiar, Patience Agbabi, Benjamin Zephaniah (though politically I suspect he'd refuse), and - one day, possibly - Daljit Nagra. There are others, but I offer these names as being in the same relative league as those mentioned (like Armitage, or Greenlaw)in the Observe article. Roddy Lumsden would make a good PL, no? Though I suspect Scotland will be its own country by then. 2010 isn't it? I do think Salmond has a shot.
Steven Waling said…
I think it was certainly the case once that the more left-wing you were, the more you tended to the experimental, and even now I dount there'd be many fans of David Cameron among the non-mainstream. But then you'd find that many among the mainstream either - poets tend to be a contrary lot who don't take to party lines very easily.

Sometimes, though, there's a kind of "conservatism of the left" - where the idea is to appeal to as many people as possible. So don't be too difficult, don't be avant, use rhyme & metre that people are familiar with and give them a nice clear message - that way leads to socialist realism and probably patronising your audience as well.
Brian Campbell said…
... on my own blog today I chastise the CBC for prioritizing celebrity culture over culture per se... in their case they extensively interview a GG award winner without actually having him read one poem! Typical of the CBC nowadays. The underlying assumption is, "Poetry is too touchy-feely/hard to understand, so we won't look at his actual writing, but because he won this award, he obviously must be great, so we'll talk to him..." What you write about Britain smacks of the same sort of complacency.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".