Skip to main content

Deaths and Entrances

Speaking of Welsh poets, Dylan Thomas (pictured) was born on this day in 1914. He would die 39 years later, in November, 1953. There is an extraordinary, brief letter, in The London Magazine’s first ever (Volume 1, No 1) issue, which opens, “Sir, the death of Dylan Thomas at the age of thirty-nine is an immeasurable loss to English letters. In memory of his poetic genius a fund has been started for the Establishment of a Trust to assist his widow in the support and education of his three young children.”[1] It is signed by thirteen hands, including T.S. Eliot, Peggy Ashcroft, Kenneth Clark, Graham Greene, Augustus John, Louis MacNeice, Edwin Muir, Edith Sitwell, and his dear friend Vernon Watkins. This sounds like an establishment view.

And yet, an unfortunate and I think misguided rear-guard action was already underway, in Scrutiny, well before 1954, to undermine this “genius”. It only grew, after his death. As G.S. Fraser puts it, “… Dylan Thomas’s reputation as a poet has undoubtedly suffered at least a mild slump. He was always far too directly and massively an emotional poet, and in the detail of his language often too confusing and sometimes apparently confused a poet …” for the newly-dominant critics of the Scrutiny school.[2]

Neil Corcoran, writing forty years after the London Magazine letter, begins by arguing that Dylan Thomas had his origins in an interest in Surrealism (among other things) but, mainly, himself[3]. The problem is, apparently, one of narcissism. “His is a poetry much taken up with the fact of, and with the emotions attached to, certain forms of psychological regression.”[4]

This is not considered a good thing, for the poetry. “There are too many poems from the 1940s in which the nebulously vatic seems repellent in its myopic self-assurance or triumphalism.”[5] The poems are trouble, and cause trouble. “The trouble with numerous poems is that their glamour and charm cannot disguise the fact that they are elaborate tautologies.”[6]

Apparently, the surface pleasures of a Dylan Thomas poem (almost like a 40s silver screen goddess, charming and glamorous) hide a troubling fact: poems are meant to be logical statements that must not contradict themselves (or else they become tautological). For Corcoran, a poem cannot, then, be a sheer verbal pleasure, enjoyed, say, for its ornamental qualities. It must be rigorously worked through, an equation that yields clear, new results. “The effect (of a Thomas poem) can seem like being insistently told, in some baffling way, some extremely simple things that we already know perfectly well…”[7] – which, despite its obviously critical intention, seems like a rather good job description for most mainstream English poetry.

Dylan Thomas is a snake charmer, or charming snake, his poems wild: “with their libidinous dictions of friction and flow”[8] – “the body of the poem always turning back in on itself”[9] – and this self-sustaining interest in body, fluid and experience is deeply troubling to a critic who wants, ideally, the poet to turn their work “outwards to a recognisable external world of action, event, suffering and relationship”[10].

Linguistic, primitive energy, with its potential slippage, its force, might render the world “unrecognizable” and therefore draw a veil over the rational order of things. In short, Thomas is “Dionysian” and therefore threatens a different order of things, one which wants its apples back in the cart – actually back on the garden’s tree. Recent anthologies of the last decade or so (for example, The Penguin Book of Poetry from Britain and Ireland since 1945, edited by Simon Armitage and Robert Crawford) pay short shrift to any post-war Forties poems or poets, neo-Romantic or otherwise, other than George Barker, Dylan Thomas and W.S. Graham (and they have 14 pages between them). Lynette Roberts and F.T Prince are not included. This is a period that time has selected to forget.

In Sean O’Brien’s recent anthology, The Fire Box: Poetry in Britain and Ireland after 1945, Graham is described as a “major” poet, in the Introduction, and is included, though Dylan Thomas is not. Nor are Roberts or Prince, again. It is unclear why Thomas, whose best work, arguably, was published in 1946, is excluded; his name is not mentioned, either, in the Introduction, though we are told that “the Movement also saw itself in reaction against the poetic excesses of the 1940s, exemplified by the hysterical irrationalism of the New Apocalypse School”.[11]

[1] London Magazine, February, 1954, Vol. I, No. I, Correspondence, p. 79.
[2] G.S. Fraser, Vision and Rhetoric: Studies in Modern Poetry (London: Faber and Faber, 1959), p. 238.
[3] Neil Corcoran, English Poetry since 1940 (London: Longman, 1993)pp. 39-42.
[4] Corcoran, p. 43.
[5] Corcoran, p. 42.
[6] Corcoran, p. 44.
[7] Corcoran, pp. 44-45.
[8] Corcoran, p. 44.
[9] Corcoran, p. 44.
[10] Corcoran, p. 45.
[11] O’Brien, Sean, The Firebox: Poetry in Britain and Ireland after 1945 (London: Picador, 1998),
1 comment

Popular posts from this blog


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Announcing the Shortlist for the 2016 Sexton PrizeSeptember 13, 2016 / By Kelly Davio
Eyewear Publishing is pleased to announce the shortlist for the 2016 Sexton Prize. The finalists are, in no particular order, as follows:

HISTORY OF GONE, Lynn Schmeidler
SEVERE CLEAR, Maya Catherine Popa
SIT IN THE DARK WITH ME, Jesse Lee Kercheval

The shortlist was selected by Eyewear’s Director Todd Swift with Senior Editor Kelly Davio. Don Share of Poetry Magazine will select the winning manuscript, which will be released at the 2017 AWP conference in Washington, D.C. The winner will be announced in October. 
Congratulations to our finalists!