They make a good argument against some of the infighting that seems to happen so much in poetry and a useful reminder of the ideas behind Carcanet, Salt and Bloodaxe. In the long run, it's ideas that make the difference.
I think Rob's right to argue that even the largest poetry publishers aren't The Establishment, but I'm not so sure when he says:
The 'establishment' is the dull, mediocre nonsense that fills the shop windows of bookshops - celebrity memoirs, TV chefs, populist fiction etc. It's disposable pap and is against anything that asks for a genuine human response. The pressure to embrace it and dumb down everything is greater than ever, but nothing acts against that tendency more than publishers dedicated to the production and selling of quality poetry, allowing it to be seen and heard in however modest a way. There's nothing 'establishment' about that.
Likewise, in George Szirtes' post, when he says:
People, particularly institutional and institutionally-funded people, whose chief concern is an accountably-representative ledger of bums on seats worry about the future of poetry. I have never worried... True poetry is always underground.
Both of these statements don't give enough respect, it seems to me, to the views of that majority of people who are into that 'dull, mediocre nonsense' - and rather implies that it's only a minority that are having a 'genuine human response' to what they're reading. I don't think we should assume that the views of the wider population don't matter, or that those who produce poetry shouldn't try to engage, and respond to the interests of, a broader audience. I say this in the context of having great respect for both Rob and George: I agree we should avoid in-fighting: but perhaps we should avoid out-fighting as well...
No comments:
Post a Comment