Simon Armitage (left) has been everywhere this week-end, in the British media - a genuine blitz. He was the cover story for the Guardian's Weekend magazine - he's founded a new band, at age 44, with an old friend, and they're The Scaremongers. Okay, suitably Gitmo-zeitgeist. And then, on the BBC flagship morning radio show, Today, at around 8.25 (today), he popped up, not to sing a few Scaremonger tunes, but to read a new poem, "The Not Dead" I believe it was titled, all about how veterans of the current wars have been let down by Britannia, and feel like awkward ghosts in ordinary towns. Okay, that may not be Ivor Gurney stuff, but it packed a punch, and is for a very good cause - the soldiers are bearing the brunt of shame better levelled at Blair (and the voters who allowed Iraq to happen) - and receiving few benefits for their patriotism and sense of duty. Armitage is one of the best, and most prolific, of the mainstream poets of his generation, and it is good to see him getting so much airplay, but there is a new generation or two now coming up, those in their 30s, and those in their 20s, exemplified by the other new media darlings, Daljit Nagra and Luke Kennard (up for 2007 Forwards in two different categories, Kennard poised to be the prodigal Dylan Thomas/ Auden of his age, especially if he wins, stay tuned). In the UK, to be on the poetry map, it seems you have to be on the radio, telly, or in a paper. Those who mainly just read and write poems can end up feeling pretty ghostly too - the silent majority of poets. And what is it with poets and bands, anyway? There's Puggy Hammer in Montreal, Paul Muldoon's group, and now Armitage's, and I have no doubt there are many, many others. Can't imagine Wallace Stevens was in a band, but if he had been, it might have been The Keener Demarcations. Yeah, dig those ghostlier sounds.
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?
Comments
I really agree with your article about the Tories now in Britain with a question: "Why do the British, Conservatives and Tories, keep supporting the nastiest American administration in its devastating foreign politics choices? Would they want, geographically, to be kicked off westerly and stop altogether being Europeans? Do they feel definitely colonized by their former colonies? "
Davide