Skip to main content

Logan's Run

It is that dreary time in the UK, when the too-small literary-journalistic community begins to select their "best books of the year".  In terms of poetry reviewing in Britain, is there a William Logan?  Logan, just once a poet, has for some time been something far worse and bigger - a reviewer of other poets.  He's become monstrous, an outlier of Herod.  His sort of reviewing doesn't happen much in the UK, at least not in the papers - the sort that is fearless, funny, reckless, and, even when wrong, accurate to its own tastes and vision.  Canada has Carmine Starnino and Eric Ormsby.  The UK could do with a Logan.  His latest reviews of books elsewhere received with portentous reverence (including at Eyewear, see our salivating Carson review) is a masterclass in iconoclasm.  Because the UK is too small and everyone meets at festivals and ceremonies, such reviewery might lead to punch ups, or at least upset apple carts at a too regular interval, but the absence of unvested interest in poetry can be striking, here.  Of course, I note an increasing absence of intelligent middle class engagement in poetry in the UK, beyond the rim of the world where poets, students, and teachers live.  I say "middle class" because I don't imagine the upper classes have much time for poetry these days; and at the moment it would be arrogant to expect much reading of it by the austerity-struck working poor.

No, the pretentious lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers, MPs, and managers, who go see opera and theatre, and the latest arty Danish film - how much poetry do they respond to?  Judging by my educated, literate and solvent neighbours, they read zilch.  If it were possible to read less than no poetry, I suspect many people would.  I can only say that this snobbish indifference to poetry might possibly arise from fatigue from all the constant blurbing and praising.  With more UK Logans unclogging the reception, a sense of zesty wit might permeate discussions of poems, and trickle out to the wider reading public, the public that adores Life of Pi and Cloud Atlas but doesn't yet know the genius of Luke Kennard, Emily Berry or Jon StoneMantel is great, sure, but British poetry is as good as it was during the time of Donne, and about two thousand people in the UK know this, or can talk about it.  About a million can explain why Breaking Bad should be on the telly here, and 10 million worship Mad Men.  Popular culture, and the Rowling thing are vital for a society that wants to encompass wide tastes, which is why Eyewear talks about them too, but it is madness when poetry is left to the poets to kick about with like kids playing with a stone while the big boys play football; poetry relegated is a society gone to the dogs.  We also need thoughtful and supportive criticism, but when the big names come out with (potential) rubbish, it's useful to have a town crier tell us.  Logan is often a jerk, and too much Loganism would be as tedious as too little.  But a little more would go a long way.

Comments

I do think engagement in poetry is on the up. The popularity of poets such as Sam Riviere and anthologies such as Salt's Best British Poetry series are helping.

There are readers are out there but poetry still needs its image tinkering here and there to push it even further. Events such as the Parnassus showed how diverse and welcoming it could be (many of the events were packed). We need more like it. Getting poetry reviewed in places such as newspapers would also be great.

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...".