tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post8028913034498613355..comments2023-08-22T08:59:10.050+01:00Comments on Sidekick Books: Five Fixes For Contemporary British Poetry Culture #2: Character & FlavourJon Stonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17454303789670556539noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post-29980356403754671262014-09-03T23:57:15.562+01:002014-09-03T23:57:15.562+01:00I realise I am very late to this, but it seems tha...I realise I am very late to this, but it seems that what you are saying is basically that reviewers should think like poets, i.e. they should attempt to describe the collection they're reviewing in the same way they would describe something in a poem - by finding the new, startling, unthought-of but completely apposite term. Most poetry reviewers are poets, of course, so this ought not to be difficult for them - or, alternatively, it should be no more difficult than writing poetry (so, quite difficult, then).<br /><br />One of the other commenters suggests that you are conflating criticism and puffery. I don't see that, or rather, not the same way he does: both, in order to have any effect, half to be more interesting, and also more appropriate to the text, than they currently are; I think where the commenter's confusion sets in is in not realising that most poetry criticism as it stands is a form of advertisement. Ultimately we want people to read more poetry. This does not mean writing uncritical reviews; it means really making the poetry live in your description of it - if you like the collection, you presumably do want readers to buy it, so go out of your way to say something more interesting than "an accomplished performance" or what-have-you; and if you dislike the collection you owe the readers (and the poet) a considered explanation of what, exactly, is wrong with it. In doing so, you will still be giving a full character of it - an impression which gives readers enough of an idea of the work that they can then make their own minds up. I don't suppose I'm alone in buying a book after reading a 'bad' review of it, if the review gave me enough information to decide that, regardless of the reviewer's opinion, the thing sounded interesting.<br /><br />The problem is, that reviews of this sort, as I mentioned earlier, are bloody difficult to write, and unfortunately, while poetry reviewing is even less of a viable 'profession' than poetry itself, reviewers are going to be disinclined to put themselves out when they can get by with "a master of language... an impressive debut... a powerful voice... a unique talent, etc."<br /><br />Solutions? Editors being much more demanding of their reviewers (but reviewers are hard enough to come by without scaring them off). Multiple reviewers arguing the toss (a la Sphinx, but in real time), and thereby being forced to explain their judgements (but see again scarcity of reviewers). Quoting as liberally as possible from the work being reviewed, so that, if nothing else, readers have the opportunity to form some opinion of their own (this can be done, but poetry takes up a disproportionate amount of space, so print editors would not necessarily be keen; online does not have this problem, but does potentially run into copyright difficulties).<br /><br />Anyway, thanks a lot for the article, I'm really looking forward to the others.Paul McMenemyhttp://lunarpoetry.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post-41388536753143122412014-07-04T21:23:47.041+01:002014-07-04T21:23:47.041+01:00In this culture that only seems to value celebriti...In this culture that only seems to value celebrities, some moves to give the poet a bit of character as a person as well as a poet, would seem to be a good idea. I've often thought that publishers' websites could do a lot more of this. Poets with good blogs or a facebook and twitter presence also come to life a bit for those who haven't met them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post-25367297752088488472014-06-25T12:19:21.166+01:002014-06-25T12:19:21.166+01:00Dear Jon
I remember Don Paterson saying that only...Dear Jon<br /><br />I remember Don Paterson saying that only thirty British poets per year should be published. He didn't say whether or not he would include himself in that number but I think we can safely conclude that he would. At the moment I am reading 'Stag's Leap' by Sharon Olds. I appreciate that it's very good of its kind but prolix American poetry has never done much for me.<br /><br />Best wishes from Simon R. GladdishPoetry Pleases!https://www.blogger.com/profile/16686247991180317838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post-44741062215109282742014-06-25T07:45:32.183+01:002014-06-25T07:45:32.183+01:00Hello Jon,
To the extent to which your argument r...Hello Jon,<br /><br />To the extent to which your argument relates to poetry advertising, to the business of publishers, I entirely agree. (These discussions always end with everyone basically agreeing.) Much of the difficulty of bringing new readers to poetry, or at least readers to new poetry, arises from publishers' (or poets') failures to express how their work relates to contemporary poetry, or indeed to anything! Where I don't agree is where this argument is then stretched out to cover all writing about poetry, as if they have the same intentions or same functions within a literary ecosystem. Certainly, as you say, poetry advertising and poetry criticism should be able to engage its readers, to convey something of the work discussed, but that's where the similarity ends. Publishers, ultimately, only puff, and without criticism, puffery is all we'll get. And I feel it's patronising to say (although I can see this is stretching your words slightly) that puffery is all readers need.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />CharlesCharles Whalleyhttp://www.charleswhalley.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post-56970220935178217372014-06-24T21:29:01.064+01:002014-06-24T21:29:01.064+01:00Hi Charles,
Thanks for the considered response! I...Hi Charles,<br /><br />Thanks for the considered response! I move from blurb to review to general discussion in the piece because I feel that there's a common denominator between them, which is this slipping into comparative language or general praise. In many ways, I don't think they're discrete areas - reviews, for instance, are used as part of marketing.<br /><br />Regarding "so why bother!" - I see your point. If we don't at least aspire to an objective critical culture, then we lose something valuable, and my sketches are not reviews. I guess I would vary what I say to: within the modes of both reviewing and marketing, finding a way to articulate what is unique about a poet should be a key function.<br /><br />Not sure entirely what you mean by patronising. The reason I say a bad (meaning negative or poor in judgement) review that paints a striking portrait does more of service is that it's likely to stay in the mind for longer, and I think people are liable to consider something for longer and be able to make up their mind more decisively the better something embeds in their memory. I've certainly found myself giving undue thought and attention to the subjects of badly written pieces or hatchet jobs because the writing has made an impression on me.<br /><br />I would actually say that Better Advertising is one of the ways to your functional critical culture. If you are able to get more people's attention, if more people feel they have a grasp of something, a strong, clearly worded image or idea to begin with, *that* is good grounds for an involved discussion on various different levels. The way most poets, inevitably, end up first being presented to me - as someone I should read because they're 'good' - gives me nothing to get my teeth into in terms of formulating my own response. If I'm told to read something and told it's good, I either nod or shake my head, and doing more than that requires a lot of studious consideration on my part. But if I'm told "So-and-so is doing this particular thing", it's much easier for me to find something to say about it.<br /><br />I would say the way Geoffrey Hill is often discussed these days is a case in point. Even though it's been done to death now, and is becoming a tediously obvious recourse, the whole 'Is he too difficult?' question gets a lot of people weighing in.Jon Stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17454303789670556539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post-35053300138469055662014-06-24T19:31:59.195+01:002014-06-24T19:31:59.195+01:00Hello Jon,
This is a great post (as ever), and I...Hello Jon,<br /><br />This is a great post (as ever), and I eagerly await the next three.<br /><br />I think there's a problem in the argument here. The piece seems to conflate blurb with review, to conflate how poetry is represented by its publishers (i.e., advertising) with how poetry is discussed generally, which does a disservice to their different intentions. It also seems to conflate writers with their output, which would limit us to log-roll or risk antagonism. (Could the example sketches, for instance, countenance describing a 'bad' poet?) It attempts to justify this by claiming "we simply do not have a practice of poetry criticism that is sufficiently removed from the writing and publishing of poetry"; it apparently attempts to solve this by adding "so why bother!"<br /><br />Especially interesting is when it argues: "In other words, a bad review that paints a striking portrait of a poet or collection is providing more of a service to the poet, and to readers, than a good review that deals in subtle nuances." I worry about how a "bad review" is still meant to be "more of a service[...]to readers, than a good review." Isn't this a little patronising?<br /><br />The tonic to bland advertising is surely not Better Advertising. The solution can only be in a functional "critical culture", which I do believe is possible. After all, what are we doing right now?<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />CharlesCharles Whalleyhttp://www.charleswhalley.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post-6766206479431694952014-06-24T14:01:27.656+01:002014-06-24T14:01:27.656+01:00Mainly I just want to say keep going!
I don't...Mainly I just want to say keep going!<br /><br />I don't recall seeing the fridge magnets before. My loss. Yes, review-speak can become homogenized - see http://litrefsarticles.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/language-of-reviews.html<br /><br />I recently read a poetry magazine with about 30 pages of reviews. They were readable and not samey vocab-wise, but I counted only 4 adverse comments, 2 of those veiled. It reminded me of "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way".<br /><br />Tim Lovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00578925224900533603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8599700202112999443.post-3929899021236340012014-06-23T18:41:33.095+01:002014-06-23T18:41:33.095+01:00Yes, as a reviewer, I think reviewers should try t...Yes, as a reviewer, I think reviewers should try to make the particular qualities of each poet vivid on the page, not least by including a fair measure of the poet's own words! I am well aware that some readers skip the entire review section of magazines... I think reviews have to attract and interest readers (without stealing too much of the precious word count from the poets) I think, too, that you'll be besieged by poets wanting you to write their blurbs!Alison Brackenburyhttp://www.alisonbrackenbury.co.uknoreply@blogger.com