Skip to main content

Freudian slips

Today's Saturday Guardian Review section seems designed to send Eyewear into overdrive.

The Page 3 Boy is Martin Amis, the UK's latest celebrity creative writing professor, quoted as saying (at the Guardian's own Hay festival) "You may have noticed that poetry is dead. The obituary has already been written. It has a ghoulish afterlife in readings and poetry slams ... not many people curl up of an evening with a book of poetry ... reading a poem involves self-examination .... we don't have the time or the inclination." Josephine Hart, poetry impresario and editor, writes the reply, linked to below.

There are so many things to say about this article, I will number my comments.

1. Nothing is more trite or tiresome than yet another trumped up literary debate.

2. The ping-pong story: poetry dead, poetry not dead, poetry dead, poetry not dead - should be shelved for another decade. As Andrew Motion, many people involved in the field of poetry, and I, have explained - last time this same "Poetry is Morris Dancing" balloon was floated - "Poetry" is not dead in the UK. Readings, events, and book publication thrive. Almost a million poetry books are sold in the UK each year. Oxfam's Life Lines poetry CD sold 10,000 copies in the period June 2006-June 2007. That's a lot of "not many people".

3. Martin Amis is, on one point, correct. Reading a poem does involve "self-examination" - though that sounds less pleasant than it might actually be. Actually, all serious (good) art requires some self-reflection on the part of those who receive it. Unconsidered art is not worth having. He is also correct insofar as even intelligent, literate people don't often fully think through their relationship to poetry - they are apoetic (in that they don't have a clearly defined poetics with which to appreciate the poetry they do read).

4. Josephine Hart is, on one point, incorrect. Her defense of poetry involved much reference to the kind of old-fashioned poetry events she herself runs, where famous actors are asked to read poems by famous dead poets, like Yeats. While these events are harmless, they bear about as much relation to a living art as Shakespeare at the Globe theatre does to Off-off-Broadway. They are linked by genre, but not by contemporary relevance. Martin Amis, surely, means by his comments that readers are not seeking out new, original poets of the 21st century, agreeing instead with Stephen Fry's idiotic comment that "modern poetry is arse-dribble" - an observation which was widely publicised last year or so. No, for poetry to be alive, it must be creating new works of value, in today's idiom, using current diction, and connecting with a new audience open to having their taste not simply confirmed, but challenged.

On this note, The Guardian has, itself, failed readers of poetry - and potential readers - by reviewing Annie Freud's new collection, The Best Man That Ever Was - in a manner that undervalues its contemporary verve.

One of the problems with poetry reviews is that they rarely set out their critical apparatus for inspection, and simply steamroll over the book, dispensing verdicts like an Acme Supreme Court Justice. Sarah Crown doesn't do this - she is quite open about her poetics. Crown says, near the end of her review of Freud: "Her facility with language is drowned out by the relentlessly whimsical tone; it is difficult, as a result, to pinpoint the emotional heart of the collection, despite a persistent focus on the characters' feelings. The strength of Freud's poetry exists in the moments when she abandons her ironic pose; should she find the courage to forsake it, her talent would be free to emerge."

This passage suggests that the reviewer has insight into Freud's inner life and intentions, and that the poet somehow lacks "courage". Freud's work is found wanting because of its tone, and its ironic pose. Instead, she is encouraged to locate an "emotional heart" for the writing. This sounds like an openly anti-modernist position. From T.S. Eliot on, ironic poses (or masks) were used to get between the poet's emotions, and the feeling that is meant to be achieved in the reader. Even Larkin was not sentimental enough to want to abandon all whimsy or irony. I actually think sentiment in poetry is undervalued in current British poetry (see current positions on Dylan Thomas), but find it rather ironic that Crown has chosen this moment, and this collection, to emphasize this position.

Ironic because Annie Freud is one of the best hopes that contemporary British poetry has, to reach the Martin Amises of the world - intelligent, worldly, cynical, novel-loving, middle class professionals - with her wit, brilliant linguistic inventiveness and cosmopolitan sophistication.

One can hardly expect every English poet to find their daffodils in their daffodils, and not every poet can or should dispense with wit or whimsy. Instead, poetry collections should be read on their own merits, and with some effort of engagement with the poet's own chosen style, or aesthetic. Freud is clearly a smart, savvy, urban dweller, and her poems are not, like Seamus Heaney's, about to yield their epiphanies (their emotional heart) in relation to a pastoral landscape. We are in danger of asking for just the sort of archaic, poetic diction that alarmed Wordsworth, in 1800, if we ask for Wordsworth now. Poetry moves on. Freud is one of those ways, in which poetry moves on, and stays living.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2098471,00.html

http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2098529,00.html

Comments

Jane Holland said…
Frankly, I fail to see how it's acceptable to describe all 'intelligent, worldly, cynical, novel-loving, middle class professionals' as being the 'Martin Amises of this world'. Are not half of us female?

I think that moment of female-blindness may be why you're also missing the point about Sarah Crown's recent review of Annie Freud's debut collection.

Annie Freud's poetry is very fine indeed, intelligent and well-constructed, but it lacks emotional depth. This may be because she eschews the traditional 'I' of the female poet on too many occasions in the book - something I applaud as a strong step forward for women poets - but has failed to find a substitute able to carry the same emotional weight. Instead, she tends to drift into the voices of those male poets by whom she's been most deeply influenced.

No daffodils, indeed! But emotional authenticity - of the middle class urban variety or otherwise - is still something we should for look for and expect in our poetry.
EYEWEAR said…
Hi Jane, thanks for the comment. I am not sure I am responsible for an act of "female-blindness" - my term "Martin Amises of the world" was intended to be gender-neutral; I realise he's male, but when I think of the term "Martin Amis" I mean "succesful mainstream British novelist with a socio-political satiric edge". More to the point, in this instance, I was refering to Amis as the sort of person who is very literate, open to the arts, but not given to reading much poetry.

I find your introduction of gender concerns - often very relevant - fairly unhelpful in this case, the case of Annie Freud and her new book. I don't think "emotional depth" can be assigned to either (or any other) gender. I don't buy such essentialism, myself.

I also find the concept "emotional authenticity" deeply problematic. Authentic for who? Emotional for who? There is a lot of theory - some of it queer, some of it quite trad - that argues that poetry is an artifice, that surface play, and many other textual practices and delights - are the main concerns of poetry - let alone the idea that poetry might be a linguistic inquiry into existence. I think it is possible for a poem to be cold and inauthentic, and still be very beautiful, and strange. I think of some poems by Algnernon Charles S. and John A. here. Then again, you could argue their work is emotionally authentic... but that might be a matter of taste.

I find some of Annie Freud's poems both formally inventive, witty, and also moving.
Schildan said…
I'm just a lay person, but as far as i'm concerned, poetry is dead. Like most average Joes, I like reading old poetry (Poe, TS Eliot, etc), but nothing recent. Sure, the modern stuff is profound, but I'm not smart enough for it. I want something that excites me and doesn't have ten thousand possible interpretations, prefereably something with good sentence structure and readable syntax.
Unknown said…
Martin Amis' comments have caused unnecessary furore. He made them to bully an outraged response from the literary classes and it worked.

In response to Jane Holland's comments about Annie Freud's work lacking emotional depth, I think that it's an unfounded response to her poetry. Linking this, as Todd says, with gender, is unwise - surely one of the oldest anti-female writer arguments is that women's work is emotionally overloaded? In which case, if Jane finds shallow emotions in A Freud's poems, applaud it as a deliberate middle-finger to the male critic.

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...".