Skip to main content

More Mayhem In Poetryville

Wow.  First the PBS gets cut and now the Poetry Society is in turmoil, much like it was during the 70s when the British Poetry Revival poets briefly held sway there.  In fact, the Poetry Society seems to gyrate like Gyro Gearloose, between staid blandness (the Georgian period) or some form of creative upheaval.  Not a bad thing, perhaps.  At any rate, blessedly, Eyewear has no opinion on this internecine struggle at the PS, because it has no insider news to report or base an opinion on.
Labels:

Comments

Christian Ward said…
"According to sources, it is because Fiona Sampson, editor of the Poetry Review, the magazine overseen by the Society, had asked for autonomy from the director, and has been pushing the focus of the society from education to promoting high-profile poets."

Come again? I'm pretty sure that's not why members pay £40 a year for. Membership fees shouldn't be used to help increase the incomes of a select few but to benefit poetry as a whole.

This new 'focus' doesn't surprise me. Pick up an issue of Poetry Review and you'll find it dominated by high-profile poets. The board of the organisation and its trustees are high-profile poets.

But here's the thing: the PS is funded with taxpayer cash. It should not be free to promote a select few but benefit poetry as a whole to get the most bang for our buck(s). To do so otherwise would be detrimental to us all.
Fri Jun 10, 10:07:00 am 2011
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

I agree one hundred per cent with Christian that British taxpayers' money should NOT be used to promote already high-profile poets. Morally, it's equivalent to giving generous tax breaks to the seriously rich. As I understand it, the Poetry Society was set up to help ALL poets and not simply a well-known handful.

Best wishes from Simon
Sat Jun 11, 01:10:00 pm 2011
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