Odds and Ends Essays, Blogs, Internet Discussions, Interviews and Miscellany

Jeffrey, I’m suddenly reminded of Philip Pullman’s remark about why he writes children’s literature: there are fewer
things you are not allowed to do when you write for children! And I am certainly aware of the ways in which, when
writing something that is going to be a lyric first and foremost, I feel as if there are fewer taboos than if I am aiming
to write a poem. The role of cliché is much different in songs than in poetry, for example.
Still, the idea that Dylan does a wider range of things than Armitage is one I’ll have to think about; after all, Armitage
has written many lyrics in his career (for his band; for his musical-documentary collaborations with Brian Hill), and
one thing I want to ponder in the seminar I’m teaching this term is whether his writing changes when he writes
lyrics.
[The discussion ended at this point]
A discussion in the British and Irish Poets Listserve about Avant-Garde Poetry and its relationship to
political change
May 2010
The following discussion is an amalgamation of two separate discussions that took place in May 2010 covering
similar topics. It’s been edited to improve clarity and to remove various digressions from the topic being discussed.
Text that appears within square brackets are explanatory additions to this facsimile, to clarify in certain instances to
whom a particular response is addressed or for other explanatory purposes.
David Lace
Discussion One
‘Cambridge Poetry and Political Ambition’ by Robert Archambeau:
http://samizdatblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/cambridge-poetry-and-political-ambition.html
Jeffrey Side
I have never understood the necessity for a political avant-garde poetry. I always thought that such poetry would
need to have a widespread readership to make even a splash in the political sphere; and even that would be
contingent on such poetry being transparent and easily understood by disinterested readers. This is not something
the poetry of Prynne, for instance, can lay claim to. If Cambridge Poetry in 2010 is more transparent syntactically (or
moving towards it) than Prynne’s poetry, and, therefore, more discernable to a hoped-for wider readership, can we
really say it is any longer an avant-garde poetry? Not that avant-garde poetry necessarily should be inscrutable, but
rather that striving for clarity for the sake of a political message, seems to be slightly perverse in such poetry.
Jamie McKendrick
Behind this comment there’s the assumption that only poetry which is “transparent and easily understood” can have
any political efficacy. It also assumes that the “disinterested” reader, whoever that may be, will be put off and
paralysed by difficulty. Poetry, avant-garde or other, surely needs to hope for the depth rather than the width of its
readership?
Jeffrey Side
Very true Jamie.
My comments were relating to Prynne and those poets who take him as an influence. Prynne, rightly or wrongly, is
noted for his “difficultness” and his specialised use of various argots drawn from science etc. Such poetry has not a
mass appeal to affect political change. This is a commonplace observation.
85