I've been getting some eye-opening comments, from readers like Paul Sutton, who find Eyewear inane. Perhaps. But another way to read it is as an ephemeral grab-bag of posts featuring poetry reviews, pop culture, and random musings, that, every so often, takes risks, and does good work. I agree - some of the posts are blog-worthy only (it is a blog). However, there are numerous featured poets, and reviewers, who share their work on here as well. I admit to having fun, sometimes, by being banal. Like everyone else, I live in a media-saturated world, of scandalous trials, dead movie stars, and James Bond. Between the inanity, I hope, readers can squint enough to catch a glimmer, if even rarely, of more valid, and valuable work. Not all of it self-directed. Though, as Mr. Sutton et al. should be aware, almost all writers now keep blogs, or web sites, where they inform readers of their doing - with the decline of marketing budgets, and the rise of small presses, few writers can afford the luxury of letting their publisher get word of their work out there. It's naive to think otherwise. As for "fame". You don't write poetry to make money or become famous.
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....
Comments
I couldn't agree more. If your blog gets 3000 page views per day on average, there must be an awful lot of 'inane' people out there. Although your posts are of varying quality (how could they not be?) you have always struck me as someone with their index finger right on the pulse of contemporary British poetry. Indeed, I think the fact that you grew up in Canada only enhances your capacity to view the British poetry scene in an objective and impartial light.
Best wishes from Simon
I have no problem at all with poets (or anyone else) publicizing forthcoming activities. However, I feel a line has been crossed when a poet conducts a feud with an editor who has omitted him from an anthology, or when a poet periodically threatens to close down his blog unless people start paying attention. And don't deny that you're desperate to be invited to pontificate on "Newsnight Review". How paltry, to aspire to the crown of that Prince of Mediocrity, Mark Lawson.
This from Roddy Lumsden, snotty Facebooker and professional blog comment sniper? Pot, kettle, and black!