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

Jamie McKendrick
Jeff, it’s a common enough observation to say that poetry, in general, lacks mass appeal, and not just that of Prynne
and those who take him as an influence. I see no reason why its difficulty shouldn’t even make its
politics fasten more enduringly in the reader’s consciousness.
The whole question of political efficacy, not just of poetry, can be very dispiriting if you consider the UK’s biggest
ever march (somewhere between the police figure of 750,000 and the organizers’ estimate of two million) had no
restraining effect on the war in Iraq.
Alison Croggon
It’s a shame nobody’s talking about the fascinating dialogue on Archambeau’s blog between him and Andrea Brady,
and the following discussion, on how/whether poetry can actually resist, or whether it remains in its very resistance
towards dominant modes of expression an impotent gesture. Robert points out:
Many of us have at one time or another turned to the idea of poetry, and the teaching of poetry, as acts
of political resistance. The rejoinder to this notion of resistance-politics comes in a comment Alain
Badieu once made about Gilles Deleuze. For Deleuze, says Badieu, “nothing was interesting unless it
was affirmative. Critique, ends, modesties . . . none of that is as valuable as a single affirmation”.
He finishes by referring to George Oppen, who strikes me as a political thinker of exemplary lucidity. But I don’t
think in any of Archambeau’s critique he’s refusing the possibility of political traction; rather he’s questioning what,
precisely, it is. Andrea suggests a few practical ways in which it works, as well as teasing out some assumptions.
Jeffrey’s point that poetry is little read, so therefore it doesn’t have any, is just crude and misses the point (both of
the politics and the poetry): it’s leverage that matters, where precisely the pressure is placed, but in individual
readings of poems and speaking more widely. The so-called avant-garde has often been quite good at placing the
lever quite so, although the effects are only clearly visible much later.
Anyway, it’s hard to imagine an avant-garde poetry that isn’t political. And claiming it can never reach an audience
(which is manifestly untrue anyway, now and historically) simply ignores people like Mayakovsky or Brecht,
products of their time and place, for sure, but overtly politically resistant poets notable for their public popularity.
Jamie McKendrick
I’d missed the origin of this conversation and the discussion on Robert Archambeau’s blog. I’d go along, though, with
most of this. My only reservation is when you say ‘It’s hard to imagine an avant-garde poetry that isn’t political’-
this may be true but it would have to include some pretty repugnant politics.
Jeffrey Side
[Quoting Allison Croggon] Jeffrey’s point that poetry is little read, so therefore it doesn’t have any, is
just crude and misses the point (both of the politics and the poetry): it’s leverage that matters, where
precisely the pressure is placed, but in individual readings of poems and speaking more widely. The socalled
avant-garde has often been quite good at placing the lever quite so, although the effects are only
clearly visible much later.
Anyway, it’s hard to imagine an avant-garde poetry that isn’t political. And claiming it can never reach
an audience (which is manifestly untrue anyway, now and historically) simply ignores people like
Mayakovsky or Brecht, products of their time and place, for sure, but overtly politically resistant poets
notable for their public popularity.
It’s not so much that it’s little read, as that the sort of poetry which is normally considered avant-garde uses
language opaquely (or should do, ideally), therefore, the problem is more that of “translation”.
Yes, Brecht was effective, but mainly for his plays, which can contribute to political change.
86