Skip to main content

Poetry London Summer 2009 & Eyewear

The editorial of Poetry London's Summer 2009 issue, by Tim Dooley, explores important issues relating to the death and rebirth of poetry criticism and reception in the UK. One of the points he makes is that there are as many new poetry collections out each year as there are film releases, and the possibility for proper engaged reviews of each of these is subsequently becoming limited, in some ways, partially simply due to the numbers; but also because newspapers, other than the Guardian, are less and less interested in reviewing poetry (I think the Times does a bit, too). On the other hand, he observes, there are new forums to read such works. He writes: "The Internet has created new possibilities like the discussion board Poets on Fire moderated by Jane Holland, or Todd Swift's blogzine Eyewear."

I am very proud to have Eyewear mentioned in this way, especially as it is an amateur pursuit without funding and fuelled only by enthusiasm. It is the second time this decade that Poetry London has mentioned an aspect of the Internet I helped to associate with poetry - in 2003, my political-poetry ebooks, edited with Val Stevenson, at Nthposition, were similarly discussed. I mention this because virtual reinvention is exhausting, as is cultural activism, and I am not sure I'll be at the forefront of whatever replaces blogging, in the next decade - it may be Twitter, or beyond - will be beyond, and beyond what we can currently imagine, surely. What I have tried to do, at Eyewear, and for all my projects, is place an ethics of engagement and interest and support, even tolerance, at the heart of the proceedings - as well as fun and surprise. I have aimed for the sort of "common pursuit" discussed at other recent posts, in the process.

Community as a unified thing is now perhaps a fiction. It may be a fiction of supreme value, worth creating. Excellent literary magazines like Poetry London and Poetry Review allow a conversation and a celebration of poetry to take place, and as such they are invaluable, and it is good if online publications, networks and actions can supplement this. I think the model may be of four: live events and performances + published or recorded works + broadcast material (radio, TV) + online activity = the full spectrum of poetic reception. Each of these four pillars of creation and reception requires a reader, listener, or audience. Poetry is not a zero sport of the single mind, but is a singular spreading of the laurel to many.

Comments

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...".