David Wheatley has been having fun over at his clever blog about how Eyewear's claim to be a persona seems to evade responsibility for one's critical position. His response is patently foolish.What I said was: "this blog is a text (indeed, intertextual) and full of shifting registers of discourse - not a transparent medium for the simple expression of an ego" - in order to counter the idea that blog-writing is simply a "lyric I" poem by another name. It isn't. "Eyewear" is a persona - a collection of gestures, attitudes, tics, styles, conventions - that shifts. It isn't meant to be "me" - whatever a me might mean - but nor is it "not Todd Swift", either. What I am not is James Bond, though.
Wheatley's position is foolish for any number of reasons. Students of the philosophy of identity will know that we are never the same twice. This flux is not alarming, because much of what we are appears to be the same over time - but no one who is intelligent denies anyone the right to age, or change their views, as they learn. As such, even critics alter their views on writers - as Leavis did with Eliot. Sometimes, as with Wittgenstein, there is a "later" period, as the change becomes very wide, between an early and later position.
In this way, Eyewear need not be unique in refusing to claim 100% consistency of tone or opinion, over time. That does not mean Eyewear avoids responsibility, however, for previously held views - which is why past posts are archived, and not deleted - except where revision has been deemed necessary. Auden, of course, edited his early poems, and sometimes ruined them. Sometimes, the earlier period does seem the better one.
On the question of a blog being, or having, a "persona" - well, of course they can, and often do. Using masks, as Wheatley knows, is part of the modern Irish tradition. Yeats's dialogues with aspects of his selves, and his historical counterparts, often was channeled through the mask - this much is common knowledge. It seems farcical, then, for a leading contemporary Irish poet-critic to mock me (he is after all a "Mocker") - for claiming to use a poetic device in my writing which allows for the presentation of different aspects of the self.
Further, "Eyewear", the blog, is not the work of one person - but many hands. Eyewear is a magazine, as much as a person. Does the TLS have but one critic, or one view? No. Yet, it has a house-style, and a tendency.
Eyewear's tendency (sometimes mocked, but never proven indefensible) is to search for areas of connection, rather than division, among poets, in poetics; to argue for the existence of an original creator for the universe (the entire set of sets); to encourage writers of poetry to publish; and to argue against closed-shop nationalism in poetries, and on behalf of a more global awareness. Eyewear is broadly suspicious of capitalism's tendency to reify, but is not Marxist. Eyewear does enjoy a good movie on the telly. Eyewear knows it has, inherent in its system, divisions. Eyewear has sympathies with Liberation Theology. Finally, Eyewear believes that, at the end of the day, men and women should seek to be kind to one another, and to place love above self-interest - and that goes for poets, too, who, sadly, in their struggle, often lose sight of that, and are sometimes the most selfish, and self-directed agents of all.
This last ethical perspective is sometimes deemed amusing, even impossible, to a certain kind of "lone wolf" poet - usually a middle-aged male - who valorises the rugged-individual-as-artist stereotype above all others - and likes Larkin's model of "get stewed". To them, writers are inherently flawed people - as if trying to be kind to each other was inherently anti-creative. Yes, some self-interest, some "ice in the heart", may be required of the editor, the critic, even the creative writer - yet many great authors and texts have been directly engaged with concern for others. Poetry is an isolated act, yet it need not be isolating.
The British model of things in the last 100 years has been to create "schools" of poetry, and schisms, and forge ahead as best one can. This has often lead to marginalisation of (many) writers who do not fit in. This Darwinian, ruthless, Alpha Male, approach, is outmoded, beastly, and not inherently related to art or poetry - but mirrors the savage and untenable social and patriarchal divisions that still damage Britain today. Britain, after all, has its power from commerce, industry, and former imperial trappings - and none of these is gained, or held, without force. This brutishness has seaped into the culture - for the culture of the UK tends, with its prizes, and its lists, and its clubs, and societies - to be endlessly based on exclusion and inclusion, who's up and down, in or out. It's all more than a little sad.
The pipsqueaks can use satire as they like (which is always flattering, to both the target and the satirist) to marvel at my locquacious tenacity and naive overflow of expression - but what they really don't like is a gadly in their inkwell who doesn't care about their coterie or the cut of their suit - who finally asks, ah, but what kind of person are you? Are you kind? For kindness, friends, is a decision to be good, and attentive, to another, to others - and never stales, is never out of fashion, and is beyond theory. It is the rock on which the very act of writing and reading is based - generosity. Unkind writers are, at heart, writers who loathe themselves.
Comments
i think this is a perfect example of pots and kettles, in the sense that both parties can be contextualised into position/s from which the detached can assess and grade into the poetical doings of a persona or bunch of em, as i inadvertantly discovered when reaching my attainment, on using my real name for the very first time, Caoimhghin desmond, kevin Deashuman, the reality of sir kev, hitting home, as it turns out i had followed a pretty close path, to the actual solution, here, awaiting to dissolve and soothe the flapper/s, both having done guilty as self charged effectively, an overflow of two similar rivals, for want of a better term, but we all know the drill.
poetry is in the music of what happens, masks and Y is too mad to beleive and so what, W went to x the Larkin number and perhaps S noticed it coz he is very keen and good at watching and pointing out, and wheato's was a bit riled at the accuracy, and responded comedically, and i look forward to playing vicar and druidic scanger to both, we all love and are human and a poem is just a life of words and actions, impulses and peace, publically making a tosser of oneself, as i aften do and have learned, the most important thing is to keep talking, unpeturbed, get over it, there is no final right or wrong, only degrees of empathy and understanding, we are all in the same boat, so be happy as we can and if one is a troll only to they who troll we, all is love and peace, gra agus siochainn, swift and wheato's teacup storm between to contemporary lions of the *scene* yah, mah, coz actually, i am the love child of larkin and so wheato's pack away the pencil case and clear off, i'm the rightful heir to your bog-keys and huath hutch perching by the humber in a good life, well done, you too todd, dave, mate/s of the sidhe, or not.
Either way, someone accuses you of thinking you're the 'James Bond of poetry' and you seem to be responding with, "If that's the impression you formed from my blog, it's because I'm assuming the persona of someone who thinks they're the James Bond of poetry."
You shouldn't be surprised if that raises a few eyebrows. Right?
Of course you didn't say "Eyewear is written in the persona ... etc". But someone criticised *you*, Todd Swift, and your defence seemed to be that what they had formed the basis of that judgement on was a persona - thus, they are mistaken.
Please note that I haven't suggested Eyewear is 'full of itself' or thinks it is James Bond. For one thing, I'm not talking about Eyewear, but Todd Swift. For another, what I suggested was that the James Bond remark was itself an implication that you are full of yourself. If I were to accuse someone of thinking they're the James Bond of anything, I would probably be trying to imply that they have a very high opinion of themselves - specifically that they think they are edgy, heroic and involved in important missions.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with being a Bond enthusiast, and it is my rephrasing of someone else's criticism, not a criticism I have adopted myself, though I do have to admit to some sympathies with the critic's viewpoint - there is an undercurrent of self-regard when you make reference, say, to not being able to find a British publisher, especially since I suspect (you can correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd be quite able to find one if you weren't aiming for the highest echelons.
However, the nature of the criticism I made in my previous post isn't directed at either you or this blog in general, but specifically at the idea that the 'blog as persona' is a serviceable defence against a character judgement someone has made of you.
That is all, Mr. Swift.
"Perhaps as you meet more poets, you'll come to recognise the difference between an enthusiast and a true self-interested type."
Ignoring the condescension, this is a false dichotomy. Most poets I've met are both enthusiastic about poetry and interested in themselves, and it's simply a matter of which wins out. I've met plenty who couldn't hide their urge to conquer behind a country, and I've met a few who are so unconcerned with self-promotion that they never even get round to sending their own work anywhere.
To suggest, however, that writing a blog that shows interest in subjects outside of itself is proof you are whiter than white, however, is rather spurious. I note and appreciate the work you do in promoting other poets, and your beliefs as to the value of this activity, but I also note that you are quite content to use all these platforms to promote yourself. You do not need to defend such a position, but I think you ought to accept that it will lead some people to form negative views.
That said, I'm with you 110% on relating popular to high culture.