Skip to main content

Costa Living

This year's Costa Prize is remarkable for the poets who are spread across the genres - not least, Matthew Hollis for his excellent biography of Edward Thomas, the key poet of the English Line.  But then there's John Burnside, up for a novel, or Patrick McGuinness, for best first novel.  Pretty impressive stuff.  However, the four poetry collections raise eyebrows.  They are all by eminent British poets, to be sure - David Harsent, Sean O'Brien, Jackie Kay, and Carol Ann Duffy.  But the claim is that the awards go to the most "enjoyable" books of the year.  This doesn't compute.  Clare Pollard and Roddy Lumsden, to name just two world-class poets, had thrillingly readable books this year.  Indeed, Eyewear received dozens of imaginative, playful, fun, and delightful collections in 2011, including Wendy Cope's superb Family Values, that are more enjoyable than the four selected.  Daljit Nagra?  I fear that poets will never reach a wider audience among the general public when poetry judges continue to opt for over-worthy, safe, and sometimes leaden collections.  The daring of the younger British poets is simply not matched by the establishment perspective, or, in this case, judges who clearly do not have their fingers on the pulse of the moment.
Labels:

Comments

Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

I can't hope to compete with Desmond's eloquence, but I'd like to make a couple of points on the subject of commenting. When Katy Evans-Bush read her poetry in Swansea, I spent some time drinking and chatting with her. She told me that she welcomes comments on her blog and doesn't like not getting any. Therefore I think that readers of poetry (or any other) blogs have a mild moral obligation to leave a comment when they are able to do so. The comments don't need to be blindingly original or memorable - they are simply a way of letting the author know that you have read and enjoyed their latest post and, just occasionally , might even generate a wider discussion.

Best wishes from Simon
.
Thu Nov 17, 05:43:00 pm 2011
Roy said…
Dear Todd

I am a fairly new veiwer of your blog and hadn't really recognised the lack of comments. I agree with Simon's comment and will endevour to contribute when I can,

Best wishes, Roy
Thu Nov 17, 09:17:00 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