Skip to main content

Sir Andrew Motion

Sir John Betjeman - it has a ring to it, and signalled an important establishment respect, even admiration. Now, the UK has Sir Andrew Motion, after the Queen has bestowed new honours, announced today. As the acceptable face of British mainstream poetry, Motion has excelled. His poetry extends and strengthens the line of new-Georgianism that Larkin returned to post-war. Sir Motion will hopefully continue to do good work on behalf of poetry, for years to come. Meanwhile, though, Eyewear feels that a gulf is opening, between the reality that is how poetry is read and written, and the false hopes and claims often made on its behalf by apologists everywhere.

I feel that poetry is actually in danger, from all sides - from both those who would make it entirely experiment-driven and Adornoesque in its austere claims and hermetic techniques - and those who think it can be a laugh-a-minute vaudeville act - comedy with rhyme basically. Poetry needs rigour, intelligence, a sense of form, and some sense of purpose - but also a sense of play, drama, and even popular emotional appeal - and it needs these human aspects combined. Poetry is a human art, not a science for robots designed for the surface of Mars. But humanity can be, at times, dull, stupid and vain, as well as arrogant, pretentious, and willfully-obscure. The human strain in poetry demands that poets write against the grain of the common denominator, as well as at times, for it.

I recently met with a ferociously smart young poet from America, completing a PhD there, who thought poems should be cerebral, serious - and could not be self-reflecting or emotive. That's one tradition, and one to be respected. But it cannot be all the story. Is Prynne the new Pound? Many in American universities now say so. The question becomes, is such a claim meaningful? How do we explain the gap between Motion and Prynne? Need we?

Comments

many people have opinions as to what poets and poetry should or shouldn't be but poetry is for everyone and all types are out there ,you just pay yer money and take youir choice, there is no right or wrong, even good or bad is subjective.the smorgesbord is open to all ,dip in!
Anonymous said…
Dear Todd

I don't think that you can say Sir Motion. It has to be Sir Andrew. I've suddenly realised how many poets were born under the sign of Aries: William Wordsworth, Charles Baudelaire, Edward Fitzgerald, Robert Frost, Seamus Heaney, Todd Swift and Marge Piercy to name but a few.

Simon R. Gladdish
The Editors said…
Interesting point of view, but isn't it the media that exacerbates this mentality? In practice, many of the poets I read, trip over in bars, go to events to hear - they're all in the middle of these extremes. But it's in the reporting that's done about them that the wars, the extremes come out.

Your PhD poet sounds like an attention-seeker, from where I'm sitting. Sure, at times it can feel like there's a surfeit of a particular type of poetry, but over time this corrects itself, doesn't it?

GT

PS. Prynne as the new Pound: hmm. Did you pick up the new essay collection from Shearsman, 'A Manner of Utterance'? Won't reinforce that idea, that's for sure. Maybe Rachel Blau DuPlessis has a better claim to that title.

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...".