Skip to main content

THE EYEWEAR MICRO-CANON

V Clay wrote to us recently here at the blog: 'It doesn't help with the critical  terms and tools, but something can be done about the canon - at least on a micro scale. For example, what would be Eyewear's five "genuinely useful to have read" collections between 2001-2010? Selection would not imply endorsement of quality or taste necessarily, but would provide people with the opportunity to shape their own opinions on a manageable number of writers... And whilst an attempt to define any sort of a canon by one blogger might run the risk of egotism, there may also be readers who are looking to be able to have the common reference points that the article above makes clear the lack of.'

 For the sake of clarity, here are SIX genuinely useful to read poetry collections published between 2001-2010 that any self-respecting poetry editor, poetry critic, or poetry reader interested in British poetry would want to be familiar with and wouldn't want to do without; NOTE a few significant books by Jon Stone, Emily Berry, Nerys Williams, Geoffrey Hill and Denise Riley came out either in 2000 or after 2010, that otherwise might have made this very tight short-list.  It is, of course, and in keeping with the very modest request above, very very far from exhaustive, and is really a jumping off point.

 Each of these books/texts is part of a significant poetry discourse, and adds something new and vital to it.  The full Canon of British poetry collections from the period 2001-2010 would be far longer, of course, and would draw from many more publishers.

 JH PRYNNE - POEMS

 LUKE KENNARD - THE HARBOUR BEYOND THE MOVIE

 JEN HADFIELD - NIGH-NO-PLACE

 DALJIT NAGRA - LOOK WE HAVE COMING TO DOVER!

 PATIENCE AGBABI - BLOODSHOT MONOCHROME

 ANDREA BRADY - WILDFIRE: A VERSE ESSAY

Comments

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