Poetry Forum

Thought this was excellent:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/no ... -ann-duffy

Especially as the Xmas truce has been so mythologised.

Yes. I enjoyed that very much. Thanks.

Dodgy alliteration and occasional clichés aside, that is a very nice poem.

B.

brianedwards wrote:Dodgy alliteration and occasional clichés aside, that is a very nice poem.

Agreed, it's not perfect. But does very nicely for a laureate offering.

Really, gents? I am not usually a cynical soul, but I thought this was really a shocker.

David wrote:Really, gents? I am not usually a cynical soul, but I thought this was really a shocker.

I quite like
pinned moon
and
in German, English, French;
each battalion choired in its grim trench.

Apart from that, though, I agree with David. (I am a cynical soul)

uhg..like skateboarding down 19 flights of stairs on a multistory car park.

Am I missing something here or is the last line deliberately uglified?

Some primary school alliteration and assonance:-
"The frozen, foreign fields were acres of pain.

Then flickering flames from the other side"

"A young Berliner,
brandishing schnapps" -- that's bad isn't it?

Sorry - I don't like it. I much prefer the poetry in Peter Gabriel's "Games Without Frontiers" that it put me in mind of.

I think it has to be borne in mind that the PL is expected to be accessible to a mass readership, especially with poems that commemorate national events, anniversaries and suchlike. I don't agree that it's excellent, but nor would I say it is a shocker.

brianedwards wrote:I think it has to be borne in mind that the PL is expected to be accessible to a mass readership, especially with poems that commemorate national events, anniversaries and suchlike.

I agree - it's a fair point. I think, on the whole, she makes a point of sticking to everyday language and there's often an element of playfulness in her writing.

Superb poem. Quite a long one too! I shall be coming back to savour the latter half of it in a while.

lemonstar wrote:

brianedwards wrote:I think it has to be borne in mind that the PL is expected to be accessible to a mass readership, especially with poems that commemorate national events, anniversaries and suchlike.

I agree.

I don't. I think the idea of a PL is that, when literate non-poetry-reading people pay attention to what she's doing, they say "Gosh, that's really quite good." I think in this case they're more likely to say "Pfft". Or, at a push, I'd say she should be accessible and good, and if it comes to one or the other it has to be good.

Well what do you expect for a barrel of sherry?

It seems to me that the PL's poetry is judged according to a different criteria than it would be if written by AN Other. If this poem appeared on the Experienced board by a PG member I have no doubts at all that the word "shocker" would not be thrown at it. Of course context is important, but should we be judging the poem or the poet?

brianedwards wrote:It seems to me that the PL's poetry is judged according to a different criteria than it would be if written by AN Other. If this poem appeared on the Experienced board by a PG member I have no doubts at all that the word "shocker" would not be thrown at it.

Completely wrong, Brian - from my point of view, at least. My sole criterion was how I would have regarded this poem if it had been posted on the Experienced board here, and my judgement was based on that alone.

In such a case, I would have politely, kindly and encouragingly (as is my wont) indicated that said poem is in fact a "shocker". The only reason I wouldn't have used that word would be the fact that we have to maintain certain standards of behaviour among ourselves. As I don't have to spare the PL's feelings, she remaining blissfully unaware of what we think, no such considerations apply.

I only gave it a cursory read first time and now it's disappeared, but I don't remember being very impressed.

I think it's reasonable to judge the poetry of one of the most acclaimed poets in the country with a slightly more critical eye than we would poems posted here - not least because we expect the poet to consider it finished, past workshopping. In the case of the PL we do have to consider the audience and aims of a public poem - we're not likely to get esoteric references to greek gods etc - the trend is much more to write in everyday speech. But I feel we should expect public poems to push the boundaries of ordinary language to produce musicality of sound and image, and I don't recall much of that here.

Ros wrote:I only gave it a cursory read first time and now it's disappeared, but I don't remember being very impressed.

I think it's reasonable to judge the poetry of one of the most acclaimed poets in the country with a slightly more critical eye than we would poems posted here - not least because we expect the poet to consider it finished, past workshopping. In the case of the PL we do have to consider the audience and aims of a public poem - we're not likely to get esoteric references to greek gods etc - the trend is much more to write in everyday speech. But I feel we should expect public poems
to push the boundaries of ordinary language to produce musicality of sound and image,
and I don't recall much of that here.

I like that! It could be part of any poet's Mission Statement!

twoleftfeet wrote:

Ros wrote: to push the boundaries of ordinary language to produce musicality of sound and image,
and I don't recall much of that here.

I like that! It could be part of any poet's Mission Statement!

I'd second that.

Well David, I just don't believe that's true. And if it is true then I am at a loss to understand what your criteria for good poetry might be, having been stunned on several occasions by your liberal use of the word "Excellent" when commenting on work that I have found to be average at best. I'd always assumed you were being polite, kind and encouraging, as is, I agree, your wont.

Ros, you admit you "only gave it a cursory read first time", so surely your opinions can be instantly dismissed. What kind of critic approaches a poem for the first time cursorily! Perhaps we should all bear this in mind before submitting to Antiphon.

I think it's reasonable to judge the poetry of one of the most acclaimed poets in the country with a slightly more critical eye than we would poems posted here - not least because we expect the poet to consider it finished, past workshopping.

That's a fair point.

I feel we should expect public poems to push the boundaries of ordinary language to produce musicality of sound and image

Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree here. It has never been, nor will ever be, the job of poetry, public or otherwise, to further the boundaries of ordinary language (whatever we might take that to mean!)Those boundaries (whatever and wherever they are) are already being pushed in pubs, factories, building sites, fishing villages, docklands, steelworks, offices, schools, nightclubs, taxis, farms, lecture halls, cattle auctions, bus depots, abbatoirs, hairdressers, hospitals and waiting rooms, playgrounds and post office queues and every house in every street all over England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Jamaica and anywhere else the language is used as a first, second or other language. The English language is extended, enriched and diversified by its millions of users in billions of contexts. It is astoundingly arrogant to assume this role is performed by the infinitesimal few who are fortunate enough to call themselves poets. Of course, the best poetry taps into the beauty and musicality that already exists within the language; of course we expect good poetry to contain some originality of expression, or provide us with a new way of seeing or hearing things; of course great poetry can enter and enrich the language with phrases, sayings and similes that become a part of our everyday speech. But it seems extremely unfair, to me, to place the responsibility for furthering the boundaries of the language, on any one individual who just happens to be quite good at putting the best words in their best order.

B.

brianedwards wrote:

I feel we should expect public poems to push the boundaries of ordinary language to produce musicality of sound and image

Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree here. It has never been, nor will ever be, the job of poetry, public or otherwise, to further the boundaries of ordinary language (whatever we might take that to mean!)Those boundaries (whatever and wherever they are) are already being pushed in pubs, factories, building sites, fishing villages, docklands, steelworks, offices, schools, nightclubs, taxis, farms, lecture halls, cattle auctions, bus depots, abbatoirs, hairdressers, hospitals and waiting rooms, playgrounds and post office queues and every house in every street all over England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Jamaica and anywhere else the language is used as a first, second or other language. The English language is extended, enriched and diversified by its millions of users in billions of contexts. It is astoundingly arrogant to assume this role is performed by the infinitesimal few who are fortunate enough to call themselves poets. Of course, the best poetry taps into the beauty and musicality that already exists within the language; of course we expect good poetry to contain some originality of expression, or provide us with a new way of seeing or hearing things; of course great poetry can enter and enrich the language with phrases, sayings and similes that become a part of our everyday speech. But it seems extremely unfair, to me, to place the responsibility for furthering the boundaries of the language, on any one individual who just happens to be quite good at putting the best words in their best order.

Very well put. I don't know what might be meant by "the boundaries of ordinary language" but in any case I don't see why poetry should be expected to "push" them.

Going back to Duffy's effort, I have to say that when I went back and reread the next day I was nowhere near as impressed. Definitely some of it was quite tired stuff. But I still think it was better than 90% of laureate poems I've read.

It is astoundingly arrogant to assume this role is performed by the infinitesimal few who are fortunate enough to call themselves poets

I agree with B.

That is where the divide between "poets" and readers of poetry seems to exist. Whether they stumble across a poem (due to its marketing) or be casual readers of poetry.

to push the boundaries of ordinary language to produce musicality of sound and image

Which of course the casual reader would immediately grasp and recognise? I think not.

Public PL poems should surely be universal? Bypassing all that "poetic" nonsense, which I think said poem achieved.

I've attended "local" poetic groups, I wanted to shoot them all. Except one, but she was really hot. The rest seemed obsessed by the musicality of sound and image and probably the daily telegraph, erhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Poetry discussion descends into polemic shock

brianedwards wrote:Ros, you admit you "only gave it a cursory read first time", so surely your opinions can be instantly dismissed. What kind of critic approaches a poem for the first time cursorily! Perhaps we should all bear this in mind before submitting to Antiphon.

Yes, it's possible I made a mistake with one of the poems in Antiphon, obviously.

brianedwards wrote: It is astoundingly arrogant to assume this role is performed by the infinitesimal few who are fortunate enough to call themselves poets

I don't believe I said that they should be the *only* people doing this (by which I meant utilising"the beauty and musicality that already exists within the language; ... originality of expression, ...a new way of seeing or hearing things") - merely that I would expect a PL to do it. That is in no way arrogant. If poets can't use language in an interesting and moving fashion, then what's the point?

k-j wrote:Going back to Duffy's effort, I have to say that when I went back and reread the next day I was nowhere near as impressed. Definitely some of it was quite tired stuff. But I still think it was better than 90% of laureate poems I've read.

the best that can be said for it is that it's better than previous laureate poems? Given the quality of many of them over the years, that's very faint praise. I rest my case.

Ros

k-j wrote:Thought this was excellent:...

In my best Oliver Hardy voice..."So you thought this was excellent"

Ros wrote:

brianedwards wrote:Ros, you admit you "only gave it a cursory read first time", so surely your opinions can be instantly dismissed. What kind of critic approaches a poem for the first time cursorily! Perhaps we should all bear this in mind before submitting to Antiphon.

Yes, it's possible I made a mistake with one of the poems in Antiphon, obviously.

*sigh*