Skip to main content


When considering the relative decline in a readership for contemporary poetry (at least in the UK), little attention is paid to what I should like to term "the disinterested reader".  At first counter-intuitive, I believe this concept is actually helpful for academics and critics trying to trace the low impact that poetry has on popular culture's discourse (tweets, fan sites, interest etc) relative to television, film, videogames, music, and novels, literary and commercial.  Too often poets bemoan the absence of interested readers for poetry - but in fact these exist and form the core support for poetry in its present form.

Indeed, this hardcore base of interested readers is precisely the problem with current poetry reception in the British isles - for this interested readership, by its very nature, is incapable of applying the sort of indifferent reactive formations that allow genres and works of art and entertainment to enter the mainstream context in a meaningful way. Instead, interested readers - in this case, almost always those with an immediate stake in the art product, like practitioners, critics, booksellers, teachers, and relations of the artist - establish a sort of in-bred circle that, due to its intense self-referentiality, can lead to cronyism, false evaluations of significance, and grandiose or unrealistic claims and expectations for the work.  Consider, however, how the disinterested reader operates, and how their functionality is far more dispersive, transgressive and indeed fertile - think of the bee that accidentally pollinates fields in the process of seeking honey.

A disinterested reader is the reader who allows an underground novel like Fight Club to become a cult classic, for instance.  This reader has no stake in the author's fortunes, or the success or failure of the poetics of the novel qua novel; they - this is hypothetical - instead read the novel perhaps on a whim - bored, they pick it up - or a friend recommends it.  They do not come to the novel expecting anything.  They only want to read "a good book".  This disinterested reader then either "likes" the book or not.  If they like it, they will then recommend it to others - and so news grows.  Such free-browsing, free-floating, "uncommitted readers" are the ones that turn little-known works, like Twilight or 50 Shades, into word of mouth sensations.  They spread the infection of reading - not because they need to, but just because.

In short, they are serial enthusiasts, these readers. Indifferent because like the god in Yeats' poem, they indifferently let drop what does not please them.  They can become interested, but are always browsing, grazing.  They do not know what will excite them next.

Now, there are few such readers of this kind for poetry. I know this, from experience as a teacher at universities and colleges since 1998 (15 years), as a writer, and publisher.  99.9% of my well-educated students, friends, and colleagues are disinterested readers - of prose.  They rarely if ever "stray" across into the poetry book genre.  If they did, they might fall in love with one, and turn it into a word of mouth best-seller.  But we know that such books barely exist - perhaps one poetry book a year achieves anything like this status, and then sales are in the tens of thousands, not the millions.

What is to be done?

Somehow, poets, poetry publishers, and poetry critics must attempt to change the discourse surrounding poetry, which I believe has falsely exaggerated the claims for poetry.  A good poetry book is not more entertaining or life-changing than Fight Club will be for most people, or The Secret History, or the Virgin Suicides.  Indeed, too often, the Interested Poetry Reader will claim too much for poetry - and this then results in Disinterested Readers being put off when they actually sample said poetry book.

I would suggest that more modest claims for poetry might, in fact, lead to more disinterested readers approaching it.  Just a thought.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog


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…


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…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…