I've watched the BBC all day, when not following BBC coverage online, and on the radio. The Royal Wedding was a smashing success: weather, dressmaker, kiss, and cartwheeling verger all being splendid. People showed up (a million) and were patriotic and happy. There has been a lot of nonsense from the media, mostly tea-leaves reading regarding the future of the Monarchy. Apparently, the use of Aston Martins, chocolate cakes, etc., are portents of a renewed modernity in the land. What hasn't been discussed (until 23:00 on Newsnight, briefly) is the elephant in the room - Anglicanism. While a Catholic myself, I am a former Anglican, and was deeply impressed by the beauty, seriousness, and moral force of the Christian sacrament of marriage - for most of the key hour of today's wedding took place in a house of God, featured sermons, readings, and hymns, and featured a sacred vow. This extraordinary showcasing of the English Faith was admirable, impressive, and reassuring - for a day, it seemed, there was a kingdom on earth as in heaven. The absence of any reflection on this core aspect of the wedding - the wedding itself (separate from the surface of clothing and pomp) - is a failure of Britain's secular media to appreciate, and observe, and report upon, what was staring it in the face. Forget a renewal of the Monarchy. Today's marriage renewed, in front of billions around the world, the significance of religion in the UK.
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?
Comments
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good."
- Nancy
Yes, I was very impressed by both Rowan Williams and Richard Chartres. As a jaded Anglican myself, it made me appreciate that the Church of England isn't quite dead yet.
Best wishes from Simon