My review of Daniele Pantano’s Mass Graves: City of Now is up at Sabotage.
(I neglected to mention this detailed review of the pamphlet in Stride by Joanne Ashcroft.)
Poetry and Power
I recently went on a residential writing course in Christchurch, and at one point we decided to recreate the ‘Team Photo’ of the Bullingdon Club on the stairs:
Go forth and legislate.
A startled and apologetic builder came out of the door behind us and it felt like something significant. But anyhow, I have been thinking about POETRY and POWER.
Review of Theresa Muñoz’s ‘Close’
My review of Theresa Muñoz’s Happenstance pamphlet Close is published in Sphinx Review. I am a negative about quite a few of the poems, but it seems the other two reviewers don’t agree. Maybe I will write something longer on it to back myself up a little more, but then if I am being negative perhaps it is better to not drag it out.
Oh lord please don’t let me be misunderstood.
Interview with Tony Williams in Stride Magazine
My interview with Tony Williams, on his pamphlet All the Rooms of Uncle’s Head and Outsider Art and lots of other things, is now up in Stride Magazine.
Review of Chrissy Williams’ ‘The Jam Trap’
I have a review of Chrissy Williams’ The Jam Trap at Sabotage, my first review there for a while. Sabotage seems to have been publishing more and more reviews lately, so I’m pleased to have my name in there.
I wrote the review mostly without internet on holiday in Devon, and didn’t quite have the time to put in as much as I’d like. I’m not sure it’s a very good review, which is a shame as it’s a good book. Its casual, witty style in prose poems means it takes a bit of work to show the cleverness behind the scenes; there aren’t really any formal features to talk about, for instance. On the one hand, this makes it a great advocate for poetry for those who don’t normally read it (along with the attractive illustrations), but on the other hand, this lack of obvious technical skill can make non-poetry readers assume it’s facile if they dislike it (i.e., since, in an overtly technical poem, one can think ‘I don’t get it but I can see it’s doing something, I can appreciate the skill it took to write’, whereas in a prose poem about wanting to buy a dog there’s only ‘I don’t get it’). I’m hoping it gets reviewed elsewhere, because it deserves attention and it deserves a better review.
Also, it has a blurb on the back from Luke Kennard, who seems to be British poetry’s most profligate blurber at the moment. Maybe it’s just the books I’m reading.
Towards Better Reviewing
In reviewing myself, as well as reading many other reviews (mostly online), I have many dull opinions on how book reviews should be undertaken, including the following points, which are too often neglected:
Review of Christopher Salvesen’s Crossing the Border
I have noticed that my review of Christopher Salvesen’s pamphlet, Crossing the Border, is now up on Sphinx. The other reviews by Kirsten Irvine — does Nell Nelson mean Kirsten Irving? — and Matt Merritt are good too. It was a hard pamphlet to write about in a small space. I have also noticed how great it is to see a review of mine alongside reviews by such good poets (assuming it is Kirsten Irving).
Poet-Critic/Critic-Poet
c.f. ‘Why Critics Praise Bad Poetry‘
Editors (either in the mainstream media, or as far mainstream as these things get, or in small journals) generally (and understandably) take publication as a poet as a requisite qualification for publication as a critic; poets generally (and understandably) write criticism to promote their new book of poems and to take part in the community. This situation leads to issues which I have been thinking about.
Few published poets write good criticism, as they are often prone to comfort criticism which is either affective or overly and comfortably formal. Of course, a sizeable number of talented poets are talented critics, but it doesn’t always correlate. This is because criticism is a separate skill, and although there is the best chance of finding this skill amongst ‘published poets’ than amongst any other demographic, it isn’t certain. Additionally, few poets wish to damn rather than praise, as in the small poetry world any target is a possible future reviewer of one’s own work (if they are not a friend already). And furthermore, few editors of small magazines want to either intimidate readers with ‘hard’ criticism — in the sense of negative, or in the sense of difficult — or to alienate poets (who make up the majority of their readership). Whilst these are all sensible reasons, it still seems a shame that so few published reviews seem willing to embrace a little danger.
I was talking with someone last week about how anti-establishment, if it is successful, becomes establishment, and how once one is inside the building one feels less inclined to throw stones at the windows. Most discussions of contemporary poetry overstate the presence of a mainstream, or of an inside and an outside; however, I do think there is a need for sufficient distance between poet and critic which is not being served at present.