Skip to main content

Shutout Island?

There is a scene in Shutter Island where a doctor tells the Federal Marshall hunting a lost mental patient that "once you are called crazy" every protestation of sanity only confirms the diagnosis. Foucault 101 this may be, but it bears recalling. The same is true for any self-description. They are fraught, minefields. The moment "I" reply to someone's label of me, I am implicated in their discourse. Denise Riley has written of this alienating linguistic situation in several of her studies. It occurs to me I am creating the same linguistic vicious circle by asking the question - as I did of Roddy Lumsden recently at Eyewear - am I a British poet? The answer is a resounding no. And, in fact, it explains a lot about my behaviour these past 7 years, doesn't it? Imagine if you think you are a cat, but are a dog.

Every catlike thing you do will be met with scorn or derision or confusion from the real cats; and dogs will not recognize you either. You become lost. Disoriented. Readers, I entered into the British poetry community from day one - naively and enthusiastically and genuinely - as someone who thought their identity was "British". Having lived in London now for 7 years, my editing, compering, teaching, and research work, all is based on the idea I have a hyphenated identity - that I am British-Canadian (born in Canada, long-term tax-paying resident of Britain). Of course, not ever being included in anthologies here (or in The Poetry Archive etc) was always puzzling and frustrating. I also have operated under another assumption: I am a good serious poet. So, let's spell it out. Todd's delusion: I think I am a good serious member of the British poetry community. That means I consider myself on a level playing field with Lumsden, Farley, Laird, Stammers, etc. If readers and critics think that, in fact a) I am not a member of the British poetry community and b) am not a good serious poet of that level - then they are entitled to consider me either deluded, misinformed, or tragically in denial. Just as in Shutter Island, the protagonist's vision of reality is so far from the truth as to represent a wound in nature, I either am completely out to lunch, or not. Which is it? Am I dog or cat? Shutout, or in? On an island, or a prison? The answer may require a decision to move to another country. After all, what point living in a place that thinks you should be barking at those you want to lick milk with.

Comments

Jon Stone said…
Why aren't you proud not to be pinned down by a national identity, with all its ingrained stereotypes and presumptions? Surely the point of being Todd Swift is that you're not 'British' and you're not 'Canadian'; you're international. "My country is the world and my religion is to do good" - or in your case, poetry.

In any case, to be truly British, you'd have to be fretting about your regional and class identity! "Am I a northerner? Am I a southerner? Am I a Londoner? Am I an East Londoner? Am I half-Cockney, quarter-Scottish, one third-home counties? Lower-middle class? Born again working class? The agony, the agony."

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.

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 ...

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....