Skip to main content

Are All Poetry Cuts Bad?

Tonight the great and the good of British Poetry will read, hosted by Carol Ann Duffy, Poet Laureate, to protest the cuts to arts funding in the UK.  I won't be there.  Pardon my French, but why shouldn't poetry also face its share of cuts during an austere time?  Many poets I know (including myself) are from relatively wealthy backgrounds or have jobs; many poetry publishers are connected to successful larger publishing houses; it is true that the cuts may lead to the closure of a few good smaller presses - but poets need to get a grip, I think.

There are parts of society that need money far more.  So long as education and the NHS are facing massive cuts, I for one cannot march demanding more money for poetry.  Uniquely among the arts, poetry is almost free to write.  All one needs is a pencil and paper.  Also, like never before, publication is basically free, too.  Blogs are free, and e-books very cheap.  What is really being protested is the cutting of the old-style establishment vision of British poetry, based around a "Book Society", and small print-based presses, that mainly published and supported a certain kind of poetry.

British poets and publishers, except for Salt, have been behind the global trend.  Poetry needs to move more to the digital realm, adopt new models of publication, and embrace increasing openness.  Don't misread this post: if there was money to pay for free tuition for all students, and money to sustain the NHS, and money to move us onto a green economy, then yes, I'd say shower the poets with cash. But until then, we shall have to go it a little more on our own.  Like Eliot and Auden and H.D. did.

Comments

Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

This post probably won't make you very popular with the British Poetry Establishment but I, for one, am strongly inclined to agree with you. British poetry is a perfect example of 'a dependency culture' that has got completely out of hand.

Best wishes from Simon
Anonymous said…
Hi there

I couldnt agree more. One of the more extraordinary results of the recent cuts has been the sight of poets turning on each other, and the Arts Council - with hardly any engagement with the broader culture. Poets of my acquaintance bridle when you suggest they live in an ivory tower, but what are we to make of this small world response? As far as I can tell, the Arts Council has subsidised British poets, publishers and publications almost single-handedly for decades now. And continues to do so. I don't notice Carol Ann Duffy, for instance, turning down events or opportunities paid for by the AC.

Most damaging of all was Duffy's crass and frankly embarrassing 'poem' (I use the word advisedly) responding to the cuts. Nice to see that Poet Laureates still write rubbish.

Great site by the way.
James
Anonymous said…
Hm. An interesting opinion, but I feel you're missing several important points. Firstly, I'm hesitant about your willingness to accept cuts which will leave 'good smaller presses' in serious trouble, while awarding £40 000 a year to Faber - a expressly commercial enterprise which is in (relatively) good financial shape.

I'd also wonder at the attitude implied by your statement that you and the poets you know are from "wealthy backgrounds"; this certainly isn't the case for myself and many of the poets I know. The "I'm alright Jack" stance you take threatens to smother a generation of poets less privileged than yourself.

Further, the idea that publishing on blogs and on cheap ebooks is a good replacement for a strong culture of poetry presses and organisations is one which needs questioning, I think. Poetry is an art which requires the reader - in order to truly appreciate a poem - to trust in its being worth reading: the concerted effort it takes to understand and work with the many ways and means language has of communicating isn't something that is easy to give. Giving such sustained attention to each one of the literally thousands of poetry blogs and e-zines just isn't realistic. We desperately need small and large presses alike to assert quality control to avoid poetry's public image slipping further into the mire.

And all of these arguments without even resorting to stating the numerous other ways to government could raise the relatively small amount of money to keep the PBS and other important enterprises afloat.

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...".