Skip to main content

Frances Leviston and the Magnificent Seven

North American poetry cannot imagine how conservative and traditional most mainstream English poets are - though perhaps this makes sense, given the fact that the English poetic tradition is both long and unusually impressive, solid grounding on which to stake commonsense claims. To try to get a sense of how stolid most poetic thinking in the UK is now, read the opinion piece in today's Guardian by UK poet Frances Leviston, a new Picador poet, whose work is affiliated with that of Don Paterson, Sean O'Brien, and others of that serious group. It is worth noting (and I think, for instance, a poet-critic like Ron Silliman wouldn't bother) that the above-mentioned are good, intelligent poets, who know a lot about verse, and craft.

Some of their work is very fine, and contributes to a genuine line of English poetry, that extends from Thomas Hardy, through Ted Hughes down to the present. Since there has never really been post-modern poetry in Britain (they had pop music instead to do that for them), the two camps that often bicker are either modernists or anti-modernists - and both are solidly based (ironically) in sober tenets that look nicked from Eliot's notebooks - impersonality, complexity, irony. What British poetry prefers is tone. It is very nuanced, this British ear, and it responds poorly to what it feels is a too-disordered shifting in levels of tone and diction in much contemporary North American poetry. Traditional English poetry knows its place. It is about place, and placing the voice in a location. This is what marks its strength, its focus - and Seamus Heaney is the king of this lyric realm, where much impressive work is done. Fine and dandy - but it makes for an often incurious time.

Perhaps North American poetry searches too much, and misses out on the beauty of knowing where to root one's language - usually in forms that come from a tradition. Still, I find that some of Leviston's claims in her piece (which seems to have been written in order to generate interest in the current 7-part pamphlet series to which she refers) are ones that I must disagree with, respectfully. Chiefly, I must question what it is she means when she writes that she believes in "putting the considerations of the poem before personal feelings, politics, religion or gender."

This is precisely the sort of empiricist thinking that avoids "Theory" like it was the Bubonic Plague. It is also very old school Eliot, if even that. What are "the considerations of the poem"? I imagine they would be ones that would be hermetically-sealed, in New Critical fashion, from history, ideology, language, sexuality, or other influences. Leviston supplies us with a list of things that come second, after the "poem" (as a Utopian, idealised object): personal feelings, politics, religion, gender.

This is frankly preposterous, and I am not sure even Frances Leviston could write a poem that resisted the influences she lists - and who would want to? Naturally, poets wish to avoid sentimentality, political rhetoric, fundamentalist dogma, and sexism - but let us not conflate those evils with sentiment, commitment, faith, or an awareness of one's self and body. I do not think it is possible to keep "personal feelings, politics, religion or gender" out of a poem - and few great poets do, or did. When one thinks of Donne, or Hopkins, or, indeed, T.S. Eliot, one thinks, also, of their faith. Whitman and Lawrence are aware of their body, both sexual and politic. Belief is part of poetry. Of course poets must place their poetry first - that is, after all, their duty and their job - but the debate is as to what, exactly, defines their sense of what "their poetry" can fit into its web, its space. One doesn't have to be Foucault or Lacan or Cicoux or Kristeva or Marx to suspect that the pleasures and problems of generating texts (poems) will involve feeling, and politics.

However, in Britain, today, there is deep suspicion of poetry that is too "political" - witness the critiques (often savage) of my anthology, 100 Poets Against The War. Though most of the poems in it were well-written, the very taint of an "agenda" marked them as suspect. Well, I happen to think that all poets, and poems, have agendas, and what's wrong with that? Only politicians and judges claim to be neutral and objective, and they tend not to be, either. I know poets - thousands of them over decades - and I have never met one who wasn't, in some way, interestingly skewed in some original or eccentric direction, and likely opinionated, especially about poetics; and, of course, to say poetry should not have politics in it is a political statement. But not in Britain, where a very naturalistic, organic myth still stands (drawn from Wordsworth) that suggests a poem is a pure thing, almost a Lockean contract, signed between an individual mind and Nature. It is a pure, perfect, and reasonable relationship, and the poem flows naturally from that.

The problem is, no one writes like that, least of all the brilliantly polluted sensibility of Sylvia Plath, whose work is so powerful precisely because it never had to choose between Tradition and Talent - or between form and content, or craft and what she needed to express. Feeling and thought fused seamlessly in her work, as it does in the work of all geniuses, not so that either is supplanted or obscured. A true poet can balance the demands of the poem with any and all other pressures on them - indeed, it is these other pressures (sex, God, love, etc.) that, as they impinge exert the force that drives the creative act of composition forward. Leviston writes as if it was as easy as pie to set aside all the things that might ruffle a poem's feathers - far from it - it is art's full struggle, and out of it is born great beauty. Now, I may have misread her, in which case I hope she will let me know.

As for the idea that the canon is formed of the best poets, regardless of gender - well, no. Canon formation is too big a topic for today, but it is well-known that many forces combine to determine who is (variously, in time) included and excluded, and nothing as simple as "the best" can be the deciding factor - if only because (as Plath's reception suggests) the idea of taste and thus the "best" changes. In Britain, perhaps, too slowly.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is a great post, Todd. I agree with you that the separation of ethics and aesthetics that certain traditions bank on is false and ultimately limiting.

Tom
http://thisisyogic.wordpress.com
Ben Wilkinson said…
I'm not sure what Leviston’s getting at here, to be honest.

At first I read her talk of putting the ‘considerations of the poem’ (sound and sense, metrical construction, rhythmical execution, its pleasing that strange something that must be pleased etc) before gender, politics, personal feelings etc in the same manner as you, Todd; which of course makes her claims pretty much indefensible, especially as she (quite rightly but seemingly contradictorily) champions Plath.

But this is an opinion piece accompanying an introductory selection of the work of poets that any serious reader or writer of poetry will have come across and read in-depth before. So her target audience isn't the likes of us. It is, whether naively or not, the popular fiction and novel-buying public; that is, intelligent readers who for one reason or another don't bother with poetry.

When you consider this, all she's saying is that good poetry usually involves a certain ambiguity, and that this can be achieved by considering the poem as a poem before (but not necessarily above) its being political, religious, gender-oriented or personal. This is exhibited in Plath: her work deals effectively with all of the aforementioned, but only because she had a strong sense and understanding of poetry as artifice, show and performance (her detractors so often fail to realise this; the source of their bewilderment being that they take her staged outpourings (eg. ‘Lady Lazarus’) as literally as possible).

As a poet, then, and as you no doubt well know, this putting the poem before anything else gives you a certain liberty and freedom within the writing of the poem: you don’t feel so bound to the Truth (like poetry ever held the franchise on this), or to pushing some specific political or social message, though these things are of course important. In fact, in putting the poem first, as I think Leviston attempts to point out, any political or social or gender or personal considerations come through in a much more subtle, even-handed and startlingly questioning manner: think of the way in which Heaney and Muldoon wrap up political issues in down-to-earth, everyday occurrences and, in the latter, humour.
Anonymous said…
Insightful, for the most part; and I agree with you about the suspect conservatism of Leviston's essay; yet I think you give a slightly flat account of British (and, since you mention Heaney, Irish) poetry. Your poetic landscape doesn't seem large and various enough to include writers as different as Paul Muldoon and R.F. Langley, Geoffrey Hill. Nor J.H. Prynne, who as a friend of Olson, Dorn et al. was quite conscious of the more iconoclastic development of the American tradition. Not to mention younger poets who have, perhaps, learned to read their maps by those landmarks.
EYEWEAR said…
If you read my earlier post on Faber's "top 7 canon" you'll see I mention Prynne and Riley. R.F. Langley is one of my favourite contemporary poets. You needn't divine a poetics from one blog post, you should consider the blog as a whole. As for the landscape I was questioning, it was the more incurious, empirical "master craftsman) mainstream style.
Anonymous said…
Speaking as a Brit awash in the currents you describe above, your post is bang on the money! An excellent read.
Anonymous said…
Innovation in British poetry has suffered an uphill struggle for many years against the strength of the canon and mainstream publishing. However, it is to the small press where innovation is to be found. Reality Street, and Spectacular Diseases to mention a couple. Look at the work of Maggie O'Sullivan, for example. Innovative, yes; canon and mainstream, no.
Jane Holland said…
It takes a long time, much thought, argument, consideration and many mistakes to develop a truly sound poetics. Perhaps Leviston simply hasn't been in the game long enough for that and is 'reaching' rather than writing out of a genuine, hard-won, experience of how poetry happens and why it happens.

Leviston was born in 1982, let us not forget. It's true that some people may be capable of mature artistic judgement at such a young age, but their number is small indeed. Though she produced a strong debut, she is but young in deed ...

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".