Skip to main content

Hollywood Oxon

There likely hasn't been a more glamorous British couple since Taylor and Burton, or a more literary-cinematic couple since Monroe and Miller, or, how about a more good-looking and smart couple since Hughes and Plath? Well, whatever you think of free publicity, and how it mixes with poetry (which is almost impossible to give away), the young British poet, Adam O'Riordan, has it in spades. He is in the papers for dating Alice Eve, pictured, a rising starlet formerly of Oxford - or she is in the papers for dating him. Wow!

He has a new book due out, she has a new movie out. And they live in California. If Eve-O'Riordan did not exist, Eyewear would have invented them. They fuse the interest in popular culture and high art this blog pursues. As is, no other poetry-movie couple in the world is currently as enviable. Or, would be, if one cared about such shallow things as glamour, fame, and being the talk of several towns. Yawn. By the way, I wonder what poet-celebrity journalist Olivia Cole makes of this star-studded and bright young couple of immense promise. Eyewear looks forward to O'Riordan's debut collection.
Labels:

Comments

puthwuth said…
'if one cared about such shallow things as glamour, fame, and being the talk of several towns. Yawn.'

But you do, right, or you wouldn't have written about this in the first place? Clarification, please.
Mon May 03, 06:54:00 pm 2010
EYEWEAR said…
Uhm - aren't you the person who hides behind the monicker Puthwuth, David? And you want me to clarify various registers and tones of irony and paradox regarding identity? We've been here before. Why is it that authorship of blogs must somehow be transparent, and yet poets and critics know that the "I" of a poem or text may be a narrator, or fictive? "Eyewear" is a persona, or character - a series of editorial stances. Eyewear (in italics) is the name of a blog with various authors whose opinions sometimes clash, sometimes overlap. There is no such thing as Eyewear "caring" about something and so writing about it. Eyewear notices and sees things in the news, in print, in culture, in the public eye, and sometimes passes comment. This seemed like a "good story" - starlet from Oxford dating young British poet and rising literary star. I (meaning me, not the blog) am interested in film and also poetry. I also find the history of Brits in LA to be interesting. If you want me to express a straightforward opinon on glamour, fame, etc - well, I'm not going to. I think if you read my poetry, or criticism you can suss for yourself what my position is. I assume you think it's that of a shallow publicity seeker. If so, I shouldn't have quit my former day job as a TV writer eh? I actually think this is a complex and challenging issue. How writers negotiate fame and the opportunities it brings is worth noticing. I think that, for example, Alan Sillitoe handled his success well. It is not clear that Dylan Thomas did.
Mon May 03, 07:31:00 pm 2010
puthwuth said…
Sorry, but I don’t understand your point here. Yes of course, my blog is by me, David Wheatley, and all the opinions thereon are mine, and not those of any kind of persona or character. The blog’s name is just the equivalent of a graffiti tagger – it is me, and nothing besides. This may be a ‘good story’, but there seems to be a basic and not very complex or challenging question at all here as to what our attitude to it might be – whether this kind of journalism is intrinsically important, or intrinsically laughable. And surely the notion that anything in The Daily Mail could be intrinsically other than shit on a stick is a bit much to ask, too. ‘Puthwuth’ calls on ‘Eyewear’ to level with your readers – shit on a stick, or not?
Mon May 03, 07:42:00 pm 2010
EYEWEAR said…
Well, this boils down to two issues. Let me reply to the first one first - Eyewear is not just a compilation of opinions that "are mine" because it is a hybrid blog - and because I explore satire, ambiguity, and various voices, in the posts. This is clear to regular readers. The tone of this post for instance, uses the style of 1940s Movie Star magazines, more or less, and that sort of hype. I would have thought the Wow would give it away. On the second point, this story is not just in The Mail. Of course The Daily Mail is a problematic publication. But this "story" is a story about real people, and attacking one publication doesn't cut to the heart of the matter. Is this journalism laughable - on one level, celebrity journalism is all trash, and, on another level - perhaps because it is trashy, it is compelling. See Camp and Kitsch. Now, all writing about actors and poets is not s--- ona stick, even personal stuff. We all know about Poe's dipsomania. We want to know that. Will I read Monroe's newly-published diaries? Maybe. I care about Monroe, can't help it. She's part of the noise of the universe that buzzes around us as we move. You can't read poetry of the 50s and 60s without knowing who Monroe or Brando are. Context is vital. On the subject of what do I think of a young, good-looking, talented, well-educated couple living in California and getting a lot of media attention for her being in pictures and him having a major debut? Well, as I said earlier, Eyewear could barely make that up. But in a world that allows Carol Ann Duffy to basically anoint certain poets - in a world where prizes and hype are often dictated by the marketing forces behind larger presses with big names and major cultural capital - in such a world, one shouldn't be surprised by this next logical step of late capitalism's connection to poetry. Poetry will become ever-more complicit with other media, to survive. British publishing paved the way for this. Eyewear observes. Eyewear didn't start the fire, or the oil slick.
Mon May 03, 08:13:00 pm 2010
puthwuth said…
Trash versus occasionally compelling trash it is, then.

You may not have started any oil slicks, but there are some very dirty-looking gannets in Louisiana at the moment and, in conclusion, I would suggest they are more urgently in need of our attention than anything in the Daily Mail! Surely.
Mon May 03, 08:18:00 pm 2010
Roddy said…
But Eyewear IS Todd Swift. I quite understand that bloggers shift registers - fine and good. Yet so much of your rhetoric depends on the tricks you learned as a college debater. 'I said something outrageous? I was being a devil's advocate'; 'I told a lie? I was being ironic - wasn't it obvious?' 'I contradicted myself? All for the better of a reasoned argument.' But none of that will stop most people reading this post as a bitchy swipe at Olivia and Adam, which is what it is, however couched it is in supposed pseudo-gossip.
Tue May 04, 02:20:00 am 2010
EYEWEAR said…
I feel like Nick Clegg stuck between the two old parties - you know when David Wheatley and Roddy Lumsden both respond to a post it has touched a nerve. Let me reply to David first about the more important story - the oil spill. Well, David, this isn't Reuters. And I did apologise for it over at the Best American Blog on Saturday. Now, let's turn to Roddy's comments. 1) Eyewear IS Todd Swift - response: not, it isn't. Eyewear is a blog magazine, with many authors. It is often playfully satirical. Looking isn't love, but it also pays attention. 2) My rhetoric depends on tricks learned as a debater - response: that's tautological Roddy. My rhetoric is based on the rhetoric I learned from oratory? Of course it is. And they aren't tricks, anymore than poetic form is a trick. Rhetoric is an ancient art that informs all speech and writing, including yours. In fact, your poetry is very rhetorical - one of the things I like about it. 3) "Bitchy swipe at Olivia and Adam". Response: that's a bit ritch, Roddy. You've made a name for yourself, lately, for making swipes at people on Facebook and blogs, that make my gentle ribbing seem like butterfly kisses. You forget, Roddy, that we are colleagues - you should try and act with collegiate decorum. And watch your Facebook wall. Some of the cyber-bullying you hosted there is actionable, as you know. However, I let that drop. Turning to the current post, who died and elected you arbiter of what can and can't be said about poets you appear to be on a first name basis with? I am sure "Adam and Olivia" can defend themselves. Let me turn to each of your wards separately. 1) Adam O'Riordan. I have said nothing bitchy about him or the Hollywood movie actress he is dating. There was a two-page spread on him and her in this Saturday's Times Culture section, one of the most-read magazines in the UK. If people get that sort of publicity for living in Hollywood and dating starlets, it is hardly fair to claim they are no longer in the public domain. My satire was aimed at the press coverage, not them. In fact, I defended them from Wheatley's claim it is all trash. I merely questioned the way that such pr can skew impressions. I also expressed interest in reading his forthcoming collection. And I was in earnest when I said they were enviable. They seem to "have it all". Good for them. Now, 2) Olivia Cole is a friend of mine; I have a review of her good debut Salt collection forthcoming at Eyewear. Cole writes a gossip column in a daily paper, and writes about going to Cannes, and meeting actors like Brad Pitt; some of her poems are about scopophilia, fame, glamour, and desire. I was sincerely interested in her take on the intersection between celebrity and poetry. Finally, Roddy, if you knew the history of British poets and writers in LA - including Dylan Thomas, or read the excellent work of Ian Hamilton on this subject, you would know it is a genre of writing and life experience that is a rich vein to mine indeed. It is one I have been interested in for years, long before any friend of yours moved there. Stop trying to read antagonism into my blog when it isn't there. I have no reason to swipe bitchily at young poets. As you know, I aim to encourage young poets. You have been oddly silent on my week's posting on Identity Parade, and young poets, at the Best American Poetry blog. It might have been more constructive to hear your thoughts there.
Tue May 04, 09:21:00 am 2010
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.  What do I mean by smart?
3 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

THE SWIFT REPORT 2023

I am writing this post without much enthusiasm, but with a sense of duty. This blog will be 20 years old soon, and though I rarely post here anymore, I owe it some attention. Of course in 2023, "Swift" now means one thing only, Taylor Swift, the billionaire musician. Gone are the days when I was asked if I was related to Jonathan Swift. The pre-eminent cultural Swift is now alive and TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR. There is no point in belabouring the obvious with delay: 2023 was a low-point in the low annals of human history - war, invasion, murder, in too many nations. Hate, division, the collapse of what truth is, exacerbated by advances in AI that may or may not prove apocalyptic, while global warming still seems to threaten the near-future safety of humanity. It's been deeply depressing. The world lost some wonderful poets, actors, musicians, and writers this year, as it often does. Two people I knew and admired greatly, Ian Ferrier and Kevin Higgins, poets and organise
1 comment
Read more