I'm always happy to find myself contradicted in my ideas regarding just about anything, especially by thinkers for whom I have a good deal of respect. It's a great way to keep the brain juices flowing and prevent myself from falling into a lazy pontifical stupor - always a temptation for me where thinking is involved. Coming across the work and reputation of William Logan the other week provided a very useful jolt.
In recent years I've been happily promoting the virtues of a kind of relaxed democracy in the world of poetry, an attitude that somewhat precludes the bracing toughness of the Prof Logans and Geoffrey Hills of this world. I suspect these guys would treat at least some of the verse I admire with scorn and I find that both threatening and fascinating.
Indeed, some of GH's wise words on difficulty in poetry have been quietly haunting my thoughts since 14 August: In my view difficult poetry is the most democratic, because you are doing your audience the honour of supposing they are intelligent human beings. So much of the populist poetry of today treats people as if they were fools. Isn't that fine? - But strangely suspect at the same time. What would Hill have regarded as populist poetry? Aye, there's the rub.
No comments:
Post a Comment