Skip to main content

Loud and Claire, or, A Pretty Good Gig

The BBC Radio 4 Today Programme today revealed a rather lax attitude towards poetry.  The reporter describing what the Oxford Professor of Poetry post entails described it, chuckling, as "a pretty good gig" - with a stipend and "only" having to "do" a few lectures.  This belittles one of the more arduous, intellectually demanding, and serious lecture series in the world devoted to poetry - perhaps the most serious.  Muldoon's and Heaney's contributions, to name only two, are among their best critical writing and speaking.  Anyway.  They then interviewed Paula Claire, who I admit Eyewear belittled when she entered the race - a fact I regret now.  When Claire explained why she had dropped out - for being described by the Oxford online authorities running the election as a "performer" and not a poet, the BBC radio chap chuckled (a lot of chuckling) and said it didn't seem "a big deal".  Claire rightly observed that in the UK, to be called a performer not a poet is a way of sometimes undercutting the value of the work.  Finally, as the spot ended, they said they hoped Michael Horovitz would win, so he could play his "anglosaxophone".  Which is a fine sentiment, but rather biased.  Equal time for Hill?
Labels:

Comments

Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

To be honest I thought that Paula Claire came across as a typically paranoid poet. I was going to vote in this election but since I'm blithely indifferent to the outcome, I don't think I'll bother.

Best wishes from Simon
Tue Jun 15, 10:08:00 am 2010
EYEWEAR said…
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you" to paraphrase Mr. Cobain
Wed Jun 16, 12:04:00 pm 2010
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