Skip to main content

Bingham and Kendall

It surely must be a footnote to history: even as Lord Bingham, formerly Britain's top legal mind, considers the war on Iraq illegal, poetry critics like Tim Kendall argue that the 2003 opposition to the war, by British poets, was merely fashionable, likely futile, probably aesthetically nugatory, and, finally, ultimately hypocritical, even self-serving. While America has elected an anti-Iraq war president, Britain, with its limited democracy, resists any public inquiry into the mess; and, its most conservative literary types oppose even the slightest hint of literature becoming embedded with the biggest political issue of our time. Why is this?
Labels:

Comments

Stu said…
"While America has elected an anti-Iraq war president, Britain, with its limited democracy, resists any public inquiry into the mess..."

Of course the election of Obama extends beyond the symbolic, but are you suggesting that the US has anything more than limited democracy?
Thu Nov 20, 01:00:00 am 2008
Anonymous said…
I think you are being unfair here Todd - and I write as someone who has had many disagreements with Kendall. For a start, has he actually said anything new following his comments on your anthology a few years ago?

I also think it's unfair to claim that Tim is repelled by political engagement from poets - after all, he has written a well-received book on the subject in which your anthology is in the minority of situations of political engagement and protest which he seems to dislike.

And, what's more, it's wrong to make judgements on someone's political colouring on the basis of a personal disagreement. Tim may be a 'literary conservative' but I've no reason to think he is a political one or a supporter of the Iraq war. Unless you know better?
Thu Nov 20, 01:34:00 am 2008
EYEWEAR said…
Roddy, thnaks for this. Said anything new? - well, until Kendall retracts his comments, or modifies them, then I think we are safe to assume he still stands by them. Academic publications are not opinion, or editorials, or blogs - they are meant to be, I think, well-thought-through positions meant to stand the test of time. Kendall's 2006 comments on the poems against the Iraq war are, therefore, relevant two years later. Now, you suggest this is a personal disagreement - which is curious. In England, it seems, anytime anyone disagrees with someone's politics, it is assumed to be personal. Well, Kendall started it - but it has never been personal at all. I have never met the man, or even had email contact with him. Never spoken to him. Further, his disagreement is not just with me, as editor of what he deems a "fashionable" and profittering anthology, but with all the poets in the book - more, he critically considers that poetry opposing the Iraq war was chiefly opportunistic and badly-written, mainly because a) it was polemical and b) written by non-combatants. I cannot imagine a more naive position than that good poems can only be written by participants of the events they describe (this would rule out almost all imaginative verse). More plainly, Kendall's sustained chapter-length assault on those writers who were offended by an illegal war is, de facto, an ideologically conservative position. However, should Kendall wish to clarify or retract his views, I'd be very glad to remove this post. He's spent the last few years writing or editing books which paint me as a war-profiteer, charlatan, coward and hypocrite (for not fighting myself in the war) so I feel it isn't so unfair of me, Roddy, to comment on his writing and views, such as I see them.
Thu Nov 20, 09:16:00 am 2008
Anonymous said…
You do a nice line in polemic Todd! But re "He's spent the last few years writing or editing books which paint me as a war-profiteer, charlatan, coward and hypocrite"

Has he? Any evidence other than the chapter of the book already mentioned?

Me defending Tim K! Can't think who should be more horrified - me or him!
Fri Nov 21, 01:05:00 am 2008
EYEWEAR said…
Hi Roddy, yes, I have more evidence - he edited a major book for Oxford, in the last few years, and asked David Wheatley, of all people, to write a section on the poets against the war anthologies. Wheatley, of course, makes the same noises as Kendall.
Mon Nov 24, 09:31:00 am 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