| |
|
Sorry, Olulabelle, but I don't dislike Motion because he's accessible - Armitage is accessible too, Larkin is, Betjeman is, so are John Hegley and Roger McGough and I have no problem with any of them, because IMHO (and in that of many others) their work is good: they know how to use language* to good effect, to say something new or fresh or interesting or simply beautiful. This quality, essential, crucial to good poetry, Motion simply does not have, again in my opinion.
To clarify: I don't dislike Motion's work because it's accessible; I dislike it because it's crap.
Surely making poetry popular is more important than popularising what's considered 'up to standard' by the literary intelligentsia?
No, not if it's dross. Just like television, poetry is not a Good Thing in and of itself. It has to be good to be worth something. Opinions differ as to what is good: fine. This is why we have Buffy and Changing Rooms and Big Brother and Cracker and Countdown. But I am allowed to hate or like any or all of the above and I don't get called a snob, which is basically what you're telling me.
(Also, if we're gonna get technical, the point of the Poet Laureate is not to popularise poetry, it's to write celebratory verse about royal occasions. God knows Andrew earns his butt of sack with his raps for William and so on ...)
I also think you're making some pretty sweeping and unfounded assumptions about my background, my tastes, my education, my judgement and my motivations which don't really stand up to scrutiny, all because I dislike the work of one particular poet. I have nothing against the man himself (see above for how he's a respected academic etc.) except that he writes such execrable poetry! It actually makes me and many others wince! It really is that bad!
Having said all that, I'm not particularly aching for a scrap, brilliant though it would be to get into a savage debate about the state of modern poetry, but I think having a go at me for what is ultimately a matter of personal taste is probably not the best way to defend poetic free speech. How I feel about his work is just my opinion but it's a deeply held one and there's no reason I should not voice it.
Sorry to bang on at such length, but I sincerely believe that bad art is an offence against the human heart and mind and should not be tolerated, which is why I give so much of a shit.
I hope I'm not offending you by responding in this way, but I was a bit miffed by the vivid image you drew of the sort of critic/reader you appear to think I am, and wanted to clarify my position.
*accessible language, that is |
|
|
