I'm wondering if there is a problem with the title of the piece.
It might be said that Simon Armitage is making a case for subversive poetry here:
My concerns are mainly about labelling poetry as something solid, traditional and worthy, something belonging to the establishment, a yardstick against which most people won't measure up.
I'm also worried that by poetry, what the government might really mean is "poetry", or POETRY – that is, grist for the spoken English competition, in which students at my school were expected to stand on a stage and chew their way through The Lady of Shalott in a feigned and foreign RP accent.
But that's a pretty weak argument for poetry to be subversive. And Simon is too witty to proffer such a weak argument. He furthers the case he seems about to make by writing this:
If those are the values being pursued, and if in Michael Gove's master plan English literature is actually a byword for Englishness, or learning "by heart" might actually mean learning by rote, then I'd prefer poetry to have no part in it.
What does "rote" versus "heart" have to do with subversion. He then makes his point, which has nothing to do with making 5-year-olds revolutionary activists:
If, on the other hand, children are allowed to find the poems that fit their voices or appeal to their imaginations and their cultural inclinations, then I'm on board. It's a well-established fact that poems learned at an early stage in the form of nursery rhymes stay with us for life, and that people suffering with Alzheimer's and other forms of memory loss, who struggle in later life to remember their address or the names of their children, can often recite nursery rhymes without any difficulty. The brain is always keen to seize on pattern and structure, and the growing brain seems to instil poetry at its core.
It seems someone mistitled Simon's article. And I'm also wondering if the person who did it was perseverating on another or an upcoming article.
We have that idea of subversion that comes from the Beats, challenging the status quo of the 50s. But also from activists or activist thinkers. Here are some pro-worker poems from the late Carol Tanen: Five Poems by Carol Tarlen. Of course, in many countries at many points in history, even recently, just thinking freely is an act of subversion. Writing the human condition against oppression can create remarkable and important poetry.
Subversive poetry is one branch of poetry with a purpose. I was trying to find the quote in one of the articles I read on Natasha Trethewey -- here are some, but I cannot find the reference in them -- she was saying how she wanted to write purposely or for a reason. Whatever it was she said, it led to her winning a Pulitzer in 2007 for "Native Guard", a book of poems named after a black Civil War regiment. She's also written Beyond Katrina. What she's doing is shedding light, giving further examination to people and culture.
Anyway, that's my late-night comment on subversive poetry. (Nor should all poetry be written in submarines, I might add.)
Obviously, I am not disagreeing with you, but pointing out that some poetry is subversive, some more generally or consciously purposeful, even though I gave no example that was neither.
HI Frank,
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if there is a problem with the title of the piece.
It might be said that Simon Armitage is making a case for subversive poetry here:
My concerns are mainly about labelling poetry as something solid, traditional and worthy, something belonging to the establishment, a yardstick against which most people won't measure up.
I'm also worried that by poetry, what the government might really mean is "poetry", or POETRY – that is, grist for the spoken English competition, in which students at my school were expected to stand on a stage and chew their way through The Lady of Shalott in a feigned and foreign RP accent.
But that's a pretty weak argument for poetry to be subversive. And Simon is too witty to proffer such a weak argument. He furthers the case he seems about to make by writing this:
If those are the values being pursued, and if in Michael Gove's master plan English literature is actually a byword for Englishness, or learning "by heart" might actually mean learning by rote, then I'd prefer poetry to have no part in it.
What does "rote" versus "heart" have to do with subversion. He then makes his point, which has nothing to do with making 5-year-olds revolutionary activists:
If, on the other hand, children are allowed to find the poems that fit their voices or appeal to their imaginations and their cultural inclinations, then I'm on board. It's a well-established fact that poems learned at an early stage in the form of nursery rhymes stay with us for life, and that people suffering with Alzheimer's and other forms of memory loss, who struggle in later life to remember their address or the names of their children, can often recite nursery rhymes without any difficulty. The brain is always keen to seize on pattern and structure, and the growing brain seems to instil poetry at its core.
It seems someone mistitled Simon's article. And I'm also wondering if the person who did it was perseverating on another or an upcoming article.
We have that idea of subversion that comes from the Beats, challenging the status quo of the 50s. But also from activists or activist thinkers. Here are some pro-worker poems from the late Carol Tanen: Five Poems by Carol Tarlen. Of course, in many countries at many points in history, even recently, just thinking freely is an act of subversion. Writing the human condition against oppression can create remarkable and important poetry.
Subversive poetry is one branch of poetry with a purpose. I was trying to find the quote in one of the articles I read on Natasha Trethewey -- here are some, but I cannot find the reference in them -- she was saying how she wanted to write purposely or for a reason. Whatever it was she said, it led to her winning a Pulitzer in 2007 for "Native Guard", a book of poems named after a black Civil War regiment. She's also written Beyond Katrina. What she's doing is shedding light, giving further examination to people and culture.
Anyway, that's my late-night comment on subversive poetry. (Nor should all poetry be written in submarines, I might add.)
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I offered up the wrong link to the Trethewey links: Pulitzer Prize-winner Natasha Trethewey.
Obviously, I am not disagreeing with you, but pointing out that some poetry is subversive, some more generally or consciously purposeful, even though I gave no example that was neither.
Here is a counterpoint: Howard Jacobson: Simon Armitage is wrong. Learning a poem by heart is a joy for life, not class warfare
Delete