Skip to main content

Bingham and Kendall

It surely must be a footnote to history: even as Lord Bingham, formerly Britain's top legal mind, considers the war on Iraq illegal, poetry critics like Tim Kendall argue that the 2003 opposition to the war, by British poets, was merely fashionable, likely futile, probably aesthetically nugatory, and, finally, ultimately hypocritical, even self-serving. While America has elected an anti-Iraq war president, Britain, with its limited democracy, resists any public inquiry into the mess; and, its most conservative literary types oppose even the slightest hint of literature becoming embedded with the biggest political issue of our time. Why is this?

Comments

Stu said…
"While America has elected an anti-Iraq war president, Britain, with its limited democracy, resists any public inquiry into the mess..."

Of course the election of Obama extends beyond the symbolic, but are you suggesting that the US has anything more than limited democracy?
Anonymous said…
I think you are being unfair here Todd - and I write as someone who has had many disagreements with Kendall. For a start, has he actually said anything new following his comments on your anthology a few years ago?

I also think it's unfair to claim that Tim is repelled by political engagement from poets - after all, he has written a well-received book on the subject in which your anthology is in the minority of situations of political engagement and protest which he seems to dislike.

And, what's more, it's wrong to make judgements on someone's political colouring on the basis of a personal disagreement. Tim may be a 'literary conservative' but I've no reason to think he is a political one or a supporter of the Iraq war. Unless you know better?
EYEWEAR said…
Roddy, thnaks for this. Said anything new? - well, until Kendall retracts his comments, or modifies them, then I think we are safe to assume he still stands by them. Academic publications are not opinion, or editorials, or blogs - they are meant to be, I think, well-thought-through positions meant to stand the test of time. Kendall's 2006 comments on the poems against the Iraq war are, therefore, relevant two years later. Now, you suggest this is a personal disagreement - which is curious. In England, it seems, anytime anyone disagrees with someone's politics, it is assumed to be personal. Well, Kendall started it - but it has never been personal at all. I have never met the man, or even had email contact with him. Never spoken to him. Further, his disagreement is not just with me, as editor of what he deems a "fashionable" and profittering anthology, but with all the poets in the book - more, he critically considers that poetry opposing the Iraq war was chiefly opportunistic and badly-written, mainly because a) it was polemical and b) written by non-combatants. I cannot imagine a more naive position than that good poems can only be written by participants of the events they describe (this would rule out almost all imaginative verse). More plainly, Kendall's sustained chapter-length assault on those writers who were offended by an illegal war is, de facto, an ideologically conservative position. However, should Kendall wish to clarify or retract his views, I'd be very glad to remove this post. He's spent the last few years writing or editing books which paint me as a war-profiteer, charlatan, coward and hypocrite (for not fighting myself in the war) so I feel it isn't so unfair of me, Roddy, to comment on his writing and views, such as I see them.
Anonymous said…
You do a nice line in polemic Todd! But re "He's spent the last few years writing or editing books which paint me as a war-profiteer, charlatan, coward and hypocrite"

Has he? Any evidence other than the chapter of the book already mentioned?

Me defending Tim K! Can't think who should be more horrified - me or him!
EYEWEAR said…
Hi Roddy, yes, I have more evidence - he edited a major book for Oxford, in the last few years, and asked David Wheatley, of all people, to write a section on the poets against the war anthologies. Wheatley, of course, makes the same noises as Kendall.

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...".