Well, now. This is big. Several major poets shortlisted for the TS Eliot Prize, the UK's equivalent of the Pulitzer in terms of prestige, have asked to be removed, in protest at the sponsorship by a hedge fund, Aurum. This seems like very bad news for The Poetry Book Society. I wonder how come no one noticed until now that in an age of austerity, poets might not want to be associated with capitalist institutions? I am not sure the protest entirely makes sense - is Alice Oswald against all capitalism? Her publisher markets and sells her books, and no doubt has a business account with a bank, and investments. It seems a staggering gesture, but one that in some ways seems self-defeating. Poets can appear aloof. Now they appear begrudging of a potential major prize, when many people would work a year for £15,000.
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
Katy posted on the same subject and has had quite a lot of reaction on her blog.
Best wishes from Simon