Nonplussed at the contemporary scene in their popular survey of English poetry, Grierson and Smith declared they were not conscious of possessing that “modern sensibility” which the young poets arrogate to themselves and demand of their critics. {1}
What that
sensibility was,
they did not profess to know, and that perplexity has persisted since.
To some, 'modern sensibility', with reference to modern poetry, is what
helps us the most to understand the true picture of the
twentieth-century world we live in.’ {2} Others stressed the many
strands, literary, scientific and mythic, that make up contemporary
outlooks, but point to the importance of Eliot’s The Waste Land, and
the fragmented, dispiriting reality it depicted. {3} Perhaps the answer
indeed lies in Eliot’s own words: {4}
‘I think that from Baudelaire I learned first, a precedent for the
poetical possibilities, never developed by any poet writing in my own
language, of the more sordid aspects of the modern metropolis, of the
possibility of fusion between the sordid realistic and phantasmagoric,
the possibility of the juxtaposition of the matter-of-fact and the
fantastic. From him, as from Laforgue, I learned that the sort of
material that I had, the sort of experience that an adolescent had had,
in an industrial city in America, could be the material for poetry; and
that the source of new poetry might be found in what had been regarded
hitherto as the impossible, the sterile, the intractably unpoetic.
That, in fact, the business of the poet was to make poetry out of the
unexplored resources of the unpoetical; that the poet, in fact, was
committed by his profession to turn the unpoetical into poetry.’
Because novelty, the experimental and the unsentimental become more
prominent in later poets, I will suggest that the ‘modern sensibility’
is a sustained attempt to widen poetry’s remit — i.e. treat as suitable
for poetry what was not so considered before, and — equally important —
to outlaw themes and responses that were once considered appropriately
‘poetic’. Avoidance can reach heroic levels. Peter Scupham’s Outing for
the Handicapped Children, comfortably mainstream, and now fifty
years
old, concludes with this stanza:
They manage, patient; share with buns
and fruit
A shaming kindness. Tamed, drowsy,
separate,
We offer them our slow, unnatural
smiles;
Tremble with intimations of their
pains.
Now, as the day we gave, or stole,
edges away,
The cool depths pull their faces from
the light. {5}
As is usual with English poetry of the period, the piece avoids stating
the obvious, of making emotional capital out of the circumstances. It’s
restrained, cool and effective. But it’s also rather insubstantial,
eluding the ‘who, what, why, when, where and how’ that journalism
covers. Suppose, as a cub reporter, we submitted its equivalent in
prose to our local newspaper editor. The last paragraph might run:
They are patient, and manage to share
their buns and fruit with an
almost shaming kindness. Each seems tamed and drowsy, separate beings,
to whom the caring staff offer their best smiles, as though complicit
with their disabilities. Gradually, as the light went, we saw their
faces fade into the cool depths of the water.
Back would come the piece, I suspect, with something like: ‘Please
develop into the usual human interest angle.’ Yes, the larger context
is missing. An older colleague might suggest:
It’s an annual event, and one the
children remember months afterwards.
As the light faded, and they were readied for the coach journey back,
one noticed them staring at the water, intent on their reflections, as
though not understanding why they were so isolated, not like other
normal children. ‘Means a lot to them,’ said Margery Stevens, the
organizer, ‘and to anyone with a drop of humanity in them.'
It’s this insubstantial setting that I’d
like to explore first. Prose displaced verse as the preferred literary
medium in the nineteenth century, and novels today are far more popular
than poetry of any stripe — understandably, given the novel’s greater
resources in plot, characterization, setting and social issues. But how
has poetry reacted? Curiously, by turning away from these developments,
sometimes to the extent of leaving us groping after any social setting
or significance at all. The novelist will generally put readers in the
picture within the first paragraph — ‘So the Lord has given us a second
Richard to rule this fractious realm, thought William Montacute, Earl
of Salisbury, as he bent a knee in the shadowed abbey at Westminster. .
.’ Or: ‘The Pacific War was finally over, and back to our small
Oklahoma farm came my dear, loving and impossible husband . . .’
Equally clear would be opening sentences like: ‘The revolver felt
heavy, but the trigger was well oiled. . . Whatever else could be said
of him, Hubert Dreaver was a responsible man. . . When I think of Aunt
Jayne's house, across the foothills of memory, and go up the unpainted
steps. . . Bernstein was my best friend. . . Open Day is not a
favourite on any Head Teacher's calendar . . .’
We know where we are immediately, and what to expect. But the Peter
Scupham piece quoted earlier needs the title to tell us what’s going
on. Even the last line is a little baffling: ‘The cool depths pull
their faces from the light.’ Just the light fading? Suicidal? Being
locked away again from public awareness?
Perhaps all three. Poetry’s ability to say more than is immediately
evident is one reason for reading it, and a more generalizing and/or
transcendental quality was certainly an expected feature of earlier
poetry, before the ‘modern sensibility’ took hold. Now poems are much
more ‘restricted’, limited to a mundane event or series of
observations. Yet Eliot’s ‘fusion between the sordid realistic and
phantasmagoric’ has created a strange animal. Certainly a conclusion or
moral can be drawn, but it’s usually more to round off the piece than
serve as the animating reason for the poem’s existence. Observations
are made in a fresh, sharp and engaging manner; a few reflections are
woven in; a generalizing comment pulls the piece together.
Most of the 83 poems featuring in Thwaite and Mole’s survey of (British) Poetry 1945 to 1980 {6} adopt
this approach, and some 67 need their
titles to make their modest and sometimes inconsequential sense. Verse
craft is restrained. Most lines are halfway to prose, in fact, and
don’t call attention to themselves.
That inconsequential nature grows more obvious in later poetry, and
little in Hulse, Kennedy and Morley’s collection of 1993 would count as
poetry to a pre-war generation. {7} Most poems are prose, a rather
unadventurous and badly-written prose, moreover, though the
Introduction claims otherwise.
We believe the poetry collected here
confirms what William Scammell
has described as “a flourishing contemporary poetic culture with
something of the brio and ambition once thought lost to the novel and
to more exciting poets abroad.” The new poetry emphasizes
accessibility, democracy and responsiveness, humour and seriousness,
and reaffirms the art’s significance as public utterances. The new
poetry highlights the beginning of the end of British poetry’s tribal
divisions and isolation, and a new cohesiveness — its constituent parts
“talk” to one another readily, eloquently, and freely while preserving
their unique identities. Thirty years ago, A. Alvarez published his
pioneering anthology The New Poetry. We make no apology for using his
title for an anthology of poetry that is fresh in its attitudes,
risk-taking in its address and plural in its forms and voices.
Readers will have to make their own minds about this mission
statement, but to me only a few poems by Eavan Boland, Paul Durcan,
Michael Donaghy, Carol Ann Duffy, Michael Hulse, Fred D’Aguiar,
Sebastian Barry, Frank Kuppner and Simon Armitage, make the grade, i.e.
only in 9 of the 55 British poets featured. {8} I look briefly at three
poems.
Carole Ann Duffy's Adultery evokes the radiance and guilt of an illicit
affair. {8} Stanza 2/3 is conventional enough with its portrayal of
increased desire and vulnerability:
Now
you are naked under your clothes all
day,
But then comes the withering:
Slim with deceit.
Why is this so effective? Perhaps it is the several levels of meaning:
a. The speaker, now a desirable woman again, imagines the figure she
possessed before her marriage became so humdrum. b. Just as the
relationship is based on deceit, so is the image the speaker holds of
herself. She is not slim, and the body, vibrant beneath the clothes, is
flagrantly other than it appears. c. Slim applies to the affair — being
only for sex, the relationship lacks the acceptance and fullness of a
proper liaison. d. With deceit hints at the social cost of the
deception, that the subterfuge demeans her, and reduces the sexual
enjoyment. e. Slim suggests concentration, that the sexual organs are
ravenous, focused on their own appetites. f. The phrase — with its
overtones of trim, brief, concealment, seat, etc. — creates a visual
embodiment of the pudenda. After the sexual largess of naked under your
clothes all day the verse tapers down into neat, wry impression of what
is only flimsily hidden from view. In short, a compressed imagery,
which releases its meaning slowly.
Michael Hulse's The Country of Pain
and Redemption ends with:
He learns to say yes, say yes, and
goes
home to a lighted house, a dazzle of
horror, security, darkness and love.
What could be more complete? But this is not the usual reaction to an
accepted proposal of marriage. The young man is dying, the victim of a
car crash or terrorist bomb. The proposal is being made to him by his
lover, who is now cradling his head and extracting some keepsake from
these wrecked hopes. The lighted house is heaven or hell or the end of
things. Note how wonderfully apt is dazzle
— the sharpness of the
image, its purely sensory nature, the bewilderment of things dark and
light. The extended image gathers force as the poem comes strikingly to
an end.
Crinkle, near Birr is a
dangerous poem. Paul Durcan starts with
Daddy and I were lovers,
and ends with
I lay on my back in the waters of his
silence,
The silence of a diffident,
chivalrous bridegroom,
And he carried me in his two hands
home to bed.
Is this incest, the boy's thoughts only, or a comment on the sexual
nature of father-son bonding? There are hints of all three, but the
poem is more an extended metaphor of boyhood love, which does not shy
away from taboo aspects. An uncomfortable poem (as was Durcan’s boyhood
{9-10}), but one with lines of shining accomplishment — we spawned our
own selves in our hotel bedroom ... the quality of his silence when he
was happy — again achieved by the compelling imagery. No one
supposes
that these views are edifying, or adequate to the full experience of
sex or love. The poems are only partial successes on other grounds,
moreover. These examples of imagery in poetry are a powerful means to
thinking, and allow literature to explore what pulp fiction serves up
as stock responses.
But, even here, much only works partially. Carol Ann Duffy’s opening
stanzas are not sufficiently precise and telling:
Wear dark glasses in the rain.
Regard what was unhurt
as though through a bruise. (a)
Guilt. A sick green tint. (b)
New gloves, money tucked in the palms,
the handshake crackles (c) Hands
can do many things. Phone.
Open the wine. Wash themselves. (d)
a. is a mismatch of social registers. b is not saved from cliché by
‘sick’. c. ‘crackle’ is not the right word. d. is not telling us
anything important, or adding to the plot. Thereafter, following stanza
3, success is very mixed, with the excellent A telltale clock / wiping
the hours from its face / on a white sheet gasping, radiant, yes
followed by Pay for it in cash,
fiction, cab-fares back/ to the life
that crumbles like a wedding cake which is only reportage,
staccato
observations that don’t engender emotion, or are too clever (wedding
cake). Even the distancing feature that ends the poem (That was / the
wrong verb. This is only an abstract noun) doesn’t make the
self-denial convincing.
Michael Hulse’s poem makes fewer errors but takes seven stanzas to set
the scene, starting:
The woman sitting on the glinting
barrier
watching a stir of wind relentlessly
uplift
the silver
undersides of leaves
is breathing very carefully, as if
afraid that she might be too tender
for breathing.
Her hand is resting on the dusty hair
of the
man lying jack-knifed on
the grass
between the glittering strips of metal
that run down the center reserve.
Does the central barrier glitter:
isn’t it generally finished in a
non-reflective material? And to what advantage is glitter emphasized? afraid that she might be too tender for
breathing seems to be two
statements run together: the woman is breathing with difficulty because
horrified by the ‘accident’, and because she’s afraid her breathing
might injure the casualty further. jack-knifed
is an image of
violence, underlined by glittering
again, but the inert body is not
inherently threatening.
Then comes a digression:
Again the country
of pain and revelation has a guest.
Which is then inflated to portentous dimensions, but has nothing
particular to say:
Again the great light has ground the
peaks to powder.
Again in the valleys the shadows have
sheltered
the traveler standing
inert
at the rail of the ferry, the trader
Bargaining with the goatherd, and the
trapper, still
and meticulous in his secretive
sidelight.
It is the discovered
country
from which, returning in wonder as if,
from memories of dreams we thought
forgotten
we sunder in awe, wanting.
Paul Durcan’s poem is very much more successful, all through, probably
because the narrative bubbles with anecdotes and telling detail:
We went on our honeymoon
To Galway, the City of the Tribes.
When Daddy bowled, I was his
wicketkeeper.
He fancied himself as Ray Lindwall
And I fancied myself as Godfrey Evans.
Daddy divided the human race
into those that had fire escapes and
spoke Irish
And those who had not got fire
escapes and did not speak Irish.
But it’s not simply a narrative, i.e. the poem doesn’t succeed by not
attempting too much, but by pushing the narrative into areas resonant
with darker or more mysterious matters:
Another night we sat in a kitchen in
Furbo
With a schoolteacher hobnobbing in
Irish
Exotic as Urdu, all that night and
rain at the windowpane.
And:
When I was twelve I obtained a silent
divorce.
Put another way, poetry today draws on a prose heritage rather than on
traditional verse, and is most careful not to lose that street-fighting
edge by over-shaping with verse techniques. Unthinkable today is the
saying of the Indian continent, that prose is the plant but poetry is
its flower. More importantly, the poetry deliberately neglects or
evades the elements of story-telling taught in elementary creative
writing courses because it wishes to strike out on different routes.
Nor does the contemporary poem draw on the cinematic, which generally
starts at some exciting point in the story. A spectacular bank heist. A
drugs swap in a seedy nightclub. The schoolchild reluctantly going up
the stairs to her stepfather's flat. The body being weighted and
dropped into the canal. The farewell party at the corporate
headquarters. The oily water derelict unloading facilities. And so on,
all telling the viewer what needs to be known: the genre, the period,
the setting, and the intended audience. {11}
Later poetry, to judge from The
Oxford Book of American Poetry, seems
even more fragmentary, and often lacks: {12}
1. Something worth saying.
2. An overall shaping where each pause, word, phrase and sentence
has the right place in the poem, each line leading naturally to the
next and developing the theme further.
3. An ‘inevitability’ of phrasing, with the word combinations
appearing unexpected but apt and memorable on reflection.
4. A close attention to the sound of the words, with those
phonetic patternings and half echoes that make a line or phrase
pleasing by its auditory qualities alone.
No doubt poetry today, or the serious poetry published in leading
magazines, has other aims. As David Caplan remarks: the plurality of
alternatives that contemporary poets encounter has destabilized our
sense of acceptable options. A circumstance that makes the poets’
formal choices nearly impossible to anticipate. In other words: forget
what you know. We’ve been invited to a game held together by a set of
rules that are self-devised, unique, complex and subject to instant
change. {12}
‘Making the rules up as they go along’ often extends into the writing
process itself, where spontaneity is admired and preserved. In recent
interview, Billy Collins had this to say: {13} I try to write very
fast. I don’t revise very much. I write the poem in one sitting. Just
let it rip. It’s usually over in twenty to forty minutes. I’ll go back
and tinker with a word or two, change a line for some metrical reason
weeks later, but I try to get the whole thing just done. Most of these
poems have a kind of rhetorical momentum. If the whole thing doesn’t
come out at once, it doesn’t come out at all. I just pitch it. I
imagine many poets do something similar, but do they publish
everything, even if the result is banal or unambitious? {14}
Spontaneous writing was a favourite pastime of surrealist poets, but
not much of their work is read today, or was then, very probably,
outside their particular coteries.
William Logan, in particular, has been scathing of contemporary poetry
{15} and an Amazon reviewer of his Another
Country remarked:
Poetry is the only art form in
America that I can think of that no
longer has a bracing tradition of real criticism. Novels, plays, films,
operas . . . we expect critics to note honestly whatever flaws and
failures they see in specific works. Critical reviews often hurt box
offices and egos, but without them an art atrophies. . . To see if
Logan’s reviews are memorable, startling, and true for you, you can
sample them at the web site of The New Criterion, but you might as well
get this book now and dip into it now and again as a tonic against the
hushed reverence that too often greets bland, lazy or meretricious
poetry.
But it’s pointless to judge a work of art on what it doesn’t intend to
give, and a few hours spent on The
Poetry Foundation site suggests that
poems of the last decade: {16}
1. Use rhyme rarely — generally in New
Formalist work, or in a loose,
jovial way:
To the Metropolitan Police Force,
London:
the asylum gates are locked and
chained, but undone
by wandering thoughts and the close
study of maps.
So from San Francisco, patron city of
tramps,
2. Employ very free verse styles. Some work exhibits a keen ear for
timing and line break:
All dark morning long the clouds are
rising slowly up
beneath us, and we are fast asleep.
The mountains unmove
intensely. And so do we. Meadows
look down.
But more is looser:
The sun is warm, the sky is
clear,
etc.... Quickly he taps
a full nib twice to the
mouth of
his
japan-ink bowl—harder than
he had
thought, if he had thought—smears
the fine spattering with
his sleeve,
and
continues, for whom haste is
more purity than
certainty,
as anarchy is better than despotism—
Or clearly prose:
My father had a steel comb with which
he would comb our hair.
After a bath the cold metal soothing
against my scalp, his hand cupping my chin.
My mother had a red pullover with a
little yellow duck embroidered
on it and a pendant made from a gold
Victoria coronation coin.
3. Pay little or no attention to cadence or patterning by sound and
white space.
4. Pack little of an emotional punch. Most of the better poems today
are intriguing, clever and self-knowing.
And the house, the mansion he
grew up in, soon a lawyer will pass
a key across a walnut desk, but even
this
lawyer will not be able to tell me
where this
mansion is. And my father's
masterpieces, his
many novels, mine
now to publish—I don't have to tell
anyone
I didn't write them, not a word.
5. Either avoid the great human commonplaces like love, hope,
separation, etc. (which are left to amateur poetry) or cover them
obliquely, in a detached and/or novel way.
I think I always liked the game
because it sounded like my name
combined with the concept of alone.
(My name really does mean ‘alone’
in Slovenian!) We don’t actually care
if it’s true, but we want to know
the person telling us is telling us
the truth.
6. Sometimes use vibrant or surreal images:
The sun is an indistinct moon. Frail
sticks
of grass poke her ankles,
and a wet froth of spiders touches
her legs
like wet fingers. The musk and smell
of air are as hot as the savory
terrible exhales from a tired horse.
7. Are rarely written from a committed political stance, probably
because dissident views can hurt careers.
Free verse no doubt became the preferred medium of poets in or supported by academia — most serious poets today — because free verse could be written regularly and generate suitable material for critical study. Hank Lazer’s recent survey of the current American poetry scene {17} is prefaced by a quote from Jed Rasula: The fact is that virtually all poetry is now under some kind of institutional supervision. The poetry referred to is serious poetry, of course, the more demanding literary productions supported by grants, university study, literary magazines and the more discerning newspapers.
But there is no shortage of support for
what’s become a minority interest. Poets
& Writers lists more than
9,100 certified authors, and claims that each issue reaches 80,000
writers. Workshops are growing in popularity and, according to AWP
(Association of Writers and Writing
Programs), now number 852. The AWP
itself offers services to over 34,000 writers, 500 member colleges and
universities and 100 writers’ conferences and centres. Many such
courses are held in attractive, holiday-like locations and boast
celebrity poets as instructors.
Equally diverse and numerous are the products of the literary
institutions. Representing the period 1990 to 2006, Poetry House
has shelved over 20,000 non-vanity press volumes of poetry. Bowker
reports 37,450 poetry and drama titles between 1993 and 2006. Amazon
was listing 1,971 new titles under the category of poetry in
2009. A
typical print run for a small press poetry book is 200 to 1000 copies.
Less than 0.5% sell more than a thousand copies or go into a second
printing. The boundaries between vanity presses, self-publication,
online publication, print-on-demand and refereed publication have
become blurred, and some small presses are reciprocal arrangements to
publish the work of friends.
United States sees funding from state, federal and local agencies, plus
foundations, prizes, literary retreats, and tenure in universities as
writers in residence. Tens of thousands of poetry readings are held
each year, and more poets publish in books, magazines and websites than
ever before. There are 200 odd graduate creative writing courses, and
many more undergraduate courses, so that some 2000
university-accredited poets are turned out yearly (making the academic
rat-race, fierce in most disciplines even fiercer here). Twenty-five
indeed of the US States have poet laureates. Poets appear as
personalities in increasing numbers of biographies, and they feature
widely in Nobel Prizes.
That symbiosis of serious poetry, academia and funding institutions is
also prevalent in England, and encourages a similar consistency of
style. As a registered charity, The
Poetry Society advises, helps and
promotes poetry at all levels of the UK's academic and cultural life.
In comfortable surroundings on the fifth floor of the Royal Festival
Hall on London's South Bank, the National Poetry Library provides a
working space, helpful staff and a vast collection of books and
magazines — practically all the poetry books produced in English in the
twentieth century. The larger publishing houses have their new titles,
and publishers like Bloodaxe,
Carcanet and Peterloo
concentrate on
poetry, much of it written by unfamiliar or foreign names. On radio and
television every year appears the Annual
Poetry Day, and each month
there are poetry competitions, either as adjuncts to prestigious arts
festivals, or run by the small presses.
Clearly, the prosaic nature of poetry today does not stem from funding
difficulties, but possibly because Modernism, which liberated and
deepened poetry for half a century, is going the way of most
revolutions, hardening into a free verse orthodoxy that alone gives
authenticity.
I have outlined aspects of the ‘modern
sensibility’ manifest in poetry over the last century, but there is an
equally important aspect. The poetry doesn’t stand on its own feet but
is elaborately buttressed and interpenetrated by literary criticism, by
other poets’ appreciative articles, and by the wider reaches of
critical theory. That is why Modernism so flagrantly flouts
journalistic and story-telling conventions, I suggest, because those
conventions would restrict input from supporting disciplines,
self-referencing and circular arguments though many are. The pattern
was indeed
set quite early. Lionel Trilling, a widely read and respected literary
critic of the post-war period, said of Robert Frost: {18}
So radical a work, I need scarcely
say, is not carried out by
reassurance, nor by the affirmation of old virtues and pieties. It is
carried out by the representation of the terrible actualities of life
in a new way. I think of Robert Frost as a terrifying poet… The
universe that he conceives is a terrifying universe. Read the poem
called Design and see if you sleep the better for it. Read Neither out
Far nor in Deep, which often seems to me the most perfect poem of our
time, and see if you are warmed by anything in it except the energy
with which emptiness is perceived… talk of the disintegration and
sloughing off of the old consciousness!
Frost does not depict the outward
events and scenery of urban life,
but the central facts of twentieth century experience, the uncertainty
and painful sense of loss, are there and seem, if nothing more bleakly
apparent in that their social and economic manifestations have been
stripped away. Frost may not depict the scenery of modern life — its
chimneys and factories, its railways, and automobiles, but he certainly
deals with the basic problems and the basic facts of modern life. The
ache of modernism finds its fullest expression in his poetry. The
modern note of frustration, loneliness, isolation and disillusionment
is often struck.
But when we turn to Neither Out Far
Nor In Deep {19} we find a rather
obvious content, a sing-song rhythm and unadventurous rhyming:
The people along the sand
All turn and look one way.
They turn their back on the land.
They look at the sea all day.
As long as it takes to pass
A ship keeps raising its hull;
The wetter ground like glass
Reflects a standing gull.
The land may vary more;
But wherever the truth may be —
The water comes ashore,
And the people look at the sea.
They cannot look out far.
They cannot look in deep.
But when was that ever a bar
To any watch they keep?
Poets and editors have their off-days, but Trilling was a leading and
influential critic. Yes, of course, we can read deep meaning into this
banality if we wish: {20}
As the final stanzas make
dramatically clear, they [i.e. people,
observers] are wasting away their lives in meaningless quest; for
whatever it is and wherever it might be, “the truth” is surely not
here. In short, they can look “Neither Far Out Nor In Deep”. There is
an implicit allegory expressing Frost’s anger against the poets and
philosophers who have wasted life in all times and places in futile
searches of the ultimate reality.
But do we have to? Is that last statement true, and does this not make
poetry a somewhat pointless enterprise? {21} What has happened to that
Augustan aim of poetry, of producing ‘what oft was thought, but ne’er
so
well expressed.’ And wasn’t the poet was expected to say, by means
varying with the period and its schools of poetry, what ordinary prose
couldn’t?
Not today. Modern poetry is not written for the common reader, but for critics
and fellow poets. It is purposely made fragmental, difficult and
non-sequential, avoiding the crafts of journalism and story-telling in
favour of speculative literary theory. Other articles of this site have
suggested how limited and aberrant can be truth, meaning and aesthetics
of that theory, {22} and here I will simply review one poem
characteristic of many. A section of Christopher Middleton’s poem
Reflections on a Viking Prow in
Bolshevism in Art and other expository
writings (Carcanet Press, 1978) runs:
The regard resting on the object . .
. the key to
self-affirmation: a self reclaims
itself from nonentity and, as the
object reveals itself in a certain
light, that self can gaze into its
own depths as an agent of interiority
. . . Between 'I am' and
'This is' there can be strange
ligatures — a magico-grammatical
tissue links first and third persons
singular.
And Neil Corcoran’s explication runs: Middleton's own ligature
'magico-gramatical' may imply that there is a kind of nostalgia in him,
despite his explicit disclaimers, for a lost divinity. The vanished god
leaves sacramental traces in the world to be reclaimed by the text in a
kind of late Platonic semiotics; the god may be brought down or back by
a calling-forth of disregarded but still immanent spirits. Officially,
however, this new relation is turned not towards theology but towards a
ludic politics. The poem effects a revision of attitudes by subverting
cliché and stereotype; it 'infuriates the world into showing its hand'.
For Middleton, poetry is a 'limit to enslavement' and thereby
'exigent': 'I decipher the dreams of the victims who have no chance to
speak'. {23}
Corcoran places Christopher Middleton's work in its broader setting,
classifying it as a variety of Neo-Modernism. Much in the five pages
devoted to the artist is exactly stated, though perhaps couched in more
radical terminology than needed: the poem is straightforward, and we
don't know whether the late Platonic refers to our world or the
tail-end of the classical world that the Viking invasions helped to
destroy. But my interest is in what is being read into the poem, which
seems more than its text supports. The intention cannot be to clarify —
it doesn't — but to thicken the poem's significance and contemporary
relevance. The commentary has echoes of Heidegger (showing its hand),
Structuralism (semiotics) and Barthes (subverting), which the poetry
does not.
I have suggested that the modern sensibility entails two elements. The
first is a move to both widen poetry’s remit to include the
‘non-poetical’ and narrow it to exclude what has hitherto been poetry,
both in subject and treatment, i.e. to continually shift the goal-posts of what’s
acceptable. The second is to make poetry deliberately difficult,
fragmented and allusive, so that its explication by critics, poets and
theorists becomes part of the subject matter.
Both are extraordinary positions to adopt. It is as though contemporary
mathematics, having made great strides in topology and number theory,
should now be
banned from these fields. Or that ready application, i.e. its simple
use by engineers, earns a black mark. Popularity smacks of the second
rate, and while anyone who knows
the English Home
Countries might grin at: {24}
Miss J. Hunter Dunn, Miss J. Hunter
Dunn,
Furnish'd and burnish'd by Aldershot
sun,
What strenuous singles we played
after tea,
We in the tournament — you against me!
the congnoscenti should know better. Simply deplorable were the wide sales of John Betjeman’s Collected Poems, dismissed as ‘Victorian’ by the poetry establishment of
the time, which went on to exceed two million copies.
References can now be found in a free pdf compilation of Ocaso Press's Modernism articles.