Skip to main content

Is Heaney God?

The BBC has been reporting on the TS Eliot poetry prize with alarming frequency. It is as if suddenly a giant memo got handed down: POETRY IS NOT DEAD! - okay, but almost off-kilter in its perspective (because baffled media types tend to always ask the same questions about poetry). On the famous Today show, today, one of the judges of this year's Eliots (to be adjudicated tonight), W.N. Herbert, was asked about having been up for the award last year. I was up against Heaney, he said, - ah said the presenter - and then he continued, humorously - there should be a law against that.

I know what he means. Eyewear concluded that the 2006 Eliots had to go to either Heaney or Muldoon, and ultimately was perhaps better given to Heaney. However, there was something about the presenter's sigh of understanding - far surpassing Herbert's playful modesty - which says something deeper, about the condition of British / Irish poetry today, and its general reception, among the chattering classes.

Heaney really, truly, is the only living poet they know and admire - other rivals would be Wendy Cope, Andrew Motion, Craig Raine, James Fenton, Sean O'Brien, maybe Simon Armitage, and Carol Ann Duffy, in terms of recognition - but no other poet yet has that aura, here, on these isles, of invincibility. Don Paterson, or Ian Duhig, are important younger poets (in the sense of generations) - but there is only one Heaney.

This is deeply unfortunate, for any number of reasons. One is, it would be good if a woman poet, for a change, was more widely read - or perhaps a Black or Asian poet; but, more importantly, how about an innovative one?

The new controversial Arts Council report makes much of excellence, and innovation. The two, for poetry, are not the same. No living poet, in English, is a better traditional lyric craftsman than Heaney - his excellence is supreme. Is he the master innovator of our times? No. One might then want to name other poets, such as Bernstein, Ashbery, Riley, or Prynne, or Trevor Joyce.

Two things, with Heaney, have become conflated, creating the sense of the suprahuman - one is his fame (Nobel, etc) from such a young age - the other is his immense ability. Poets, because they cannot fathom such luck, such fortune, put the two together, to create a sense that mastery of lyric can lead to such a pot of gold. As such, the poets are to blame, with the media, in lazily equating Contemporary Poetry with that sigh of ah, Heaney. As in, well, if you were up against Heaney, you had to lose. Heaney is one of the gods of poetry in the current age. Set against Larkin, or Hughes, or Hardy, or Yeats, or Auden, or Eliot, or Lowell, or Frost, he is not invincible, but simply one of the vert best at what he does, in his later lifetime.

It is time poets lost a little of the sighing deference though, and moved on a little, looking ahead - there is a new generation of under-40 poets in the UK and Ireland, of some brilliance (Kennard, Nagra, Higgins, etc.). They'll be inducing the sighs on the radio, soon enough.
Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
Hear, Hear! Well said.
Tue Jan 15, 07:46:00 pm 2008
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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....
3 comments
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

"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...".
1 comment
Read more