Skip to main content

Tears in the Fence (Number 47)

Tears in the Fence. Is that tears, like crying, or ripping? Never you mind. Either way you say it, this is one of the best "little magazines" now operating in the British Isles - one independent of mainstream and avant-garde alike - or rather, simply interested in whatever it deems interesting, regardless of hype or coterie affiliation - a magazine always open to poets from abroad (especially France, North America and Australia) and various styles and ways of writing. The editor is poet David Caddy.

I'd recommend you submit and/or subscribe. It's only $20 cash for four issues for Americans, and £15 for three issues here - or take the lifetime gamble, for a mere £100 (!). For American orders, contact Deane Laczi, 714 South 12th street, Lafayette, IN 479005, USA. Send other queries to Caddy at 38 Hod View, Stourpaine, Blandford Forum, Dorset, DT11 8TN.

Issue 47 has reviews of Giles Goodland, my new collection Winter Tennis, and Ian Brinton on Lee Harwood. It features poems by, among others, Joe Dunthorne, Chris McCabe, and Lisa Gordon. Tom Chivers has a fun, clever little essay on tattoos, Internet browsing, and making a "living" as a poet. The review of my book, by Alex McRae, says this, among other things: "Its range reflects the assured skill of a writer whose curiousity leads readers into strange and magical places."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Glad to have your review in this issue, which is, as you say, a strong one. Thanks for your kind comments on the development of the magazine, and on my column! Philip Jenks' tattoo really is extraordinary...
Fri Apr 04, 05:41:00 pm 2008
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
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

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