I'm no great fan of the whole idea of a Poet Laureate, at least in its current form, and I'd have to say that I prefer Carol Ann Duffy's earlier books than her more recent work. This particular moan, though, from the Rev Peter Mullen, really put my back up.
Of course, it is in the Telegraph, so a right-wing agenda can be pretty much assumed from the off. And yes, about halfway down, he starts rambling on about 'Lefties', before hammering the point home in the final paragraph. In between he runs through all the usual sneers regarding contemporary poetry.
To be fair, his arrogant disdain isn't confined to the contemporary. He also helpfully points out that Auden, Keats, Hughes and Wordsworth were merely 'competent', and 'fine' - any of you who have hitherto been labouring under the misapprehension that they were great should consider yourselves well and truly corrected.
I should say that I tend to think that there are great poems, for the most part, rather than great poets. Even minor poets sometimes write great poems. But some poets write more of them than others, and for the sake of argument might then get called great. Rev Mullen makes no mention of what, in his opinion, constitutes greatness, but from the tone of the rest of the piece I'm guessing that it's basically poetry that he likes.
6 comments:
You do have a point, Matt. It’s a terrible, high-toned, hectoring, pre-war-scout-masterish sort of ‘review’ isn’t it? Mind you, you can’t get away from the fact that the poem is spectacularly dreadful.
I think the problem might be that we don’t really have a register in contemporary (literary) poetry anymore for the large-scale public address. It makes me realise how great a poet Tennyson was (when he was on form) when it came to that sort of thing. I think too of Hardy’s ‘The Convergence of the Twain’ as another fine example of the poem as public statement. In fact I might go & read it again, right now, to remind me.
Yes, I think you're right - it's one reason I think the Laureate's job, as it currently stands, is a pretty thankless one. I didn't really like the poem, and to be honest I haven't liked much by CAD for a while now (she did do a great reading at Polyverse a couple of years ago, though), but she's probably on a hiding to nothing.
My assessment of CAD’s work is ambivalent.”The Worlds Wife” I own, and enjoyed in part.
She is hated by the Poetry Establishment as an uncouth parvenu, so I quite like her persona. For me her work is hit and miss, an observation that few poets would object to.
The poem was launched in the Daily Mirror, I suspect that its audience is not accustomed to reading poetry, but would have found her poem accessible and would have understood it. The poem is not to my taste but does a job. I imagine that Waterloo, Trafalgar and Agincourt inspired a slew of poetry of varying quality, most of which has not survived. No era has a monopoly on greatness or dross.
Both Boris Johnson and CAD have produced poetry inspired by the Olympics which has reached an audience far beyond its regular hinterland, and that is a good thing. Sometimes it’s the competing, not the medal ,that counts.
To be fair seeing Poetry debated in the national press is a good thing in itself.
I was also unimpressed by the poem, although for other reasons than the Reverend's. I agree with C.J. A's point about a public register, but I think there are problems intrinsic to Duffy's approach. I've blogged about it already at henrymking.blogspot.co.uk, if you want to read that.
It is good to see poetry appearing & being discussed in more public spaces, I agree. There’s a place, too, for poetry that quickly & easily connects with people. But none of this is any good if the poetry isn’t any good. And ‘Translating the British, 2012’ is not a very good poem.
It actually reads a bit like scribbled notes for a poem that Carol Ann Duffy never got around to writing. It staggers around on the page, barely held together by clichés & a few random rhymes & half-rhymes. It gets lost somewhere between making a valiant (or foolish) attempt to speak for us all & trying to come off as a rallying cry for the soft left. It feels slack & muddled & rambling. In fact it sounds a bit ... well, drunk, I suppose.
I don’t know if it’s possible anymore to speak for the nation; indeed, I don’t know if it ever was. In this sense Carol Ann Duffy (& she doesn’t need the likes of me to say it, but I will) – who has written some rather good poems – is on a hiding to nothing with this sort of thing.
Time to get the laureate’s job description emailed over from HR & set up a working party, wouldn’t you say?
It is good to see poetry appearing & being discussed in more public spaces, I agree. There’s a place, too, for poetry that quickly & easily connects with people. But none of this is any good if the poetry isn’t any good. And ‘Translating the British, 2012’ is not a very good poem.
It actually reads a bit like scribbled notes for a poem that Carol Ann Duffy never got around to writing. It staggers around on the page, barely held together by clichés & a few random rhymes & half-rhymes. It gets lost somewhere between making a valiant (or foolish) attempt to speak for us all & trying to come off as a rallying cry for the soft left. It feels slack & muddled & rambling. In fact it sounds a bit ... well, drunk, I suppose.
I don’t know if it’s possible anymore to speak for the nation; indeed, I don’t know if it ever was. In this sense Carol Ann Duffy (& she doesn’t need the likes of me to say it, but I will) – who has written some rather good poems – is on a hiding to nothing with this sort of thing.
Time to get the laureate’s job description emailed over from HR & set up a working party, wouldn’t you say?
Post a Comment