Poetry Forum

Full Version: Carol Ann Duffy v Mills & Boone
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books...-Boon.html

Whilst the Oxford Professor, whom I have never read, has a great line 'democtatic language pared to the barest bean', is this sour grapes, from a man who is supposed to have wanted the job, and was only the second choice for the post he now holds? Is he doing poetry a favour by keeping it in the press?
Well. It does sound like a fairly nasty case of sour grapes, or perhaps yet another instance of a feudal remnant desperate to hold on to class divisions and trying to use the tried-and-true academic snobbery to do so.

I disagree with Ms Duffy in many cases and I fear I don't much like her poetry, but the argument is not one of preference, it is one of the right to "democratise" poetry. How dare a career academic from a clearly privileged background demand that poetry remain in the realm of the elite?

For the sake of balance, I have sought out some of Sir Geoffrey's poetry and I confess, I prefer his -- but his attitude is appallingly exclusionist.

On the other hand, the post of Poet Laureate is and always has been about politics. I don't believe it's possible for a Laureate to properly represent poetry when being unable -- by the nature of the appointment -- to express anything contrary to an official nationalist stance.
(02-01-2012, 10:23 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]Well. It does sound like a fairly nasty case of sour grapes, or perhaps yet another instance of a feudal remnant desperate to hold on to class divisions and trying to use the tried-and-true academic snobbery to do so.

I disagree with Ms Duffy in many cases and I fear I don't much like her poetry, but the argument is not one of preference, it is one of the right to "democratise" poetry. How dare a career academic from a clearly privileged background demand that poetry remain in the realm of the elite?

For the sake of balance, I have sought out some of Sir Geoffrey's poetry and I confess, I prefer his -- but his attitude is appallingly exclusionist.

On the other hand, the post of Poet Laureate is and always has been about politics. I don't believe it's possible for a Laureate to properly represent poetry when being unable -- by the nature of the appointment -- to express anything contrary to an official nationalist stance.

It is interesting that Sir Geoff got his job, after Ruth Padel was made to resign, following an alleged smear campaign against another candidate, the bloke that wrote Omeros. I suppose you are right about taking the Laureateship, though patronage outright, has at times produced masterpieces-- Maecenas, in ancient Rome, was a very wealthy man who indulged in this, and a great many of the famous names took his shilling, or denarius.

What was rather good, was to see on this same page, there was another article, arguing that it was not Shakespeare's words, but his novel use of grammar which differentiated him from his contemporaries who, it is claimed, produced as many new words, pro rata, as he did. But there was no proper reference, and the argument put seemed feeble (he inverted) , and I am sure there must have been more to it than that. Still, almost an entire page devoted to matters poetic....Smile

















Any debate is good debate when it comes to poetry, lest it lapse into the obscurity seemingly desired by musty academics.

Academia is not, in and of itself, a nasty place to be -- but at times it's like Benidorm for the disaffected windbag.

One also wonders, as it seems you have yourself, whether Sir Geoff takes issue with the distaff being on staff at all Smile
(02-01-2012, 10:02 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books...-Boon.html

Whilst the Oxford Professor, whom I have never read, has a great line 'democtatic language pared to the barest bean', is this sour grapes, from a man who is supposed to have wanted the job, and was only the second choice for the post he now holds? Is he doing poetry a favour by keeping it in the press?
Quote:Sir Geoffrey Hill criticised the 56-year-old for her eagerness to ‘democratise’ the art form.
i find the above a little hard to accept. i am after all a part of the democracy he mentions. i do think face book will breed a new kind of language and isn't that what new poets will share in? of course classic poetry and the like will still about but isn't it changing language a part of changes in future writing?

i don't know any of the pair but it does sound like sour grapes. to personally remonstrate over a named poet who got the acclaim he was seeking.

While there are many fine 'academic' poets and I absolutely hate
our current anti-intellectual culture; this guy sucks purple
donkey-dicks. It's people like him who give academic's a bad name.

I happen to like Duffy's poetry and usually support attempts at
'democratization' even though they're highly susceptible to
'pop music syndrome' which sucks a donkey-dick of a different color.
('Mauvelous' maroon?)

I especially love 'the poem is a form of texting' even though the
phrase is calculated to provoke for publicity's sake. (Of course,
I'm intrinsically biased since the stuff I write has a lot in common
with 'texting'.) Smile

A poem of Duffy's:


                  Talent

   This is the word tightrope. Now imagine
   a man, inching across it in the space
   between our thoughts. He holds our breath.
   
   There is no word net.
   
   You want him to fall, don't you?
   I guessed as much; he teeters but succeeds.
   The word applause is written all over him.

                  - - -