Skip to main content

Friendship and Poetry

The relationship between friendship and poetry is rarely openly remarked upon, or studied, and yet, it is perhaps the single strongest force acting upon the development, and distribution, of published works of poetry, since 1800. Without small groups of friends, often acting in sympathetic concert, as mentors, co-editors, sponsors, and allies, both Romanticism and Modernism would not have generated the works they did (one thinks of Wordsworth-Coleridge, or Eliot-Pound). The friendship between Thomas and Frost was seminal for them both. Again, in the 30s, there was Auden, and his group.

Or, in the 50s, and beyond, The New York School. Or, Lowell and Bishop. Or, in the 60s and 70s, Heaney and Mahon and Longley. Or, the current friendships among the Language poets. Still, such friendships are something of a taboo subject. It was therefore surprising to read the recent article by Chris Hamilton-Emery, poet and publisher, in the latest (2009) version of The Writer's Handbook, where he recommends to emerging poets that one of the best ways to have a book published is to befriend an established poet-publisher, perhaps by studying with them.

I found this a breathtaking suggestion. The problem with openly advocating such a strategy is that it begins to entrench what is, unless carefully handled, either nepotism, or an apprentice-system. The problem with the idea that one essentially only publishes one's friends is that, bluntly, it rules out the possibility of dispassionately publishing one's enemies - or those one is merely indifferent to. And yet, exactly just such cold-blooded, disinterested editing and criticism is badly needed now, in Britain and beyond, where most poetry reviews are either puff pieces by friends, or hatchet jobs by enemies. Given that perhaps six or seven men (and they are mostly men) decide who gets published by a big British press (a life-changing decision, for readers and for poets), few active, younger poets dare speak their mind, openly - lest they incur the editorial wrath of the gods.

This sort of friendship = publication equation, now out in the open, and in print, is chilling. What are poets to do who, for whatever reason, are shy, not particularly social, or maybe isolated, due to health, work, or geography? How does a good poet interest a publisher-editor-poet? The answer should be, by work alone. Poets will always be friends (and, alas, foes). But we need critics, and editors, and publishers, able to see beyond their current crop of students and friends, who are willing to publish simply the best work, regardless of how they feel, personally, about the writer. Of course, in prose, the matter is different - because novelists can bring in money, one can be an odious wretch and still be supported - but, since poetry is so often a labour of love - it is, therefore, those one loves, one publishes.

Still, Emery is not idealistic - his advice, on his Salt website, to poets - is more like Machiavelli than anything. Here he is on being "a player":

The world of poetry is not filled with gentle suffering creatures (to call upon Eliot). It is not fair, just, or particularly caring. It can be supportive, but it is not a self help group. It is not a world based upon power sharing. In fact, the world of poetry can be a bear pit, and like any industry it is competitive and has moments of confrontation and even dirty tricks. Be prepared to take some knocks along the way.

My problem with this sort of real-politik writing is that, substitute "poetry" for "politics" and it might as well be Dick Cheney writing. Poetry is not (despite the Salt model) an "industry". Publishing may be - but then again, that's only one way of looking at it. I happen to believe that poetry should be far more "caring" about its practitioners - and that an ethics of publishing and editing is, if not desirable, at least possible. If it can be posited, it should be considered. Emery seems to relish the Darwinian bearpit.

Here he is on knowing "who's who":

However, the more experience the poet has of knowing who’s who, of knowing whom to call upon to further their career as a writer, is very often a key to commercial success.

Furthering their career... it's all so Sinatra swagger.

The truth is, since neither the marketplace, nor the general public, nor even most intelligent creative people, care enough about new poetry to buy and read it in any great numbers, poetry is left in the hands of poets, and those who want to control poets (throw their weight around). In any real "business" - to borrow Emery's analogy - competition would be so fierce that mediocre bullies would be tossed out, and far more rigorous discipline, and scrutiny, would be applied. The swaggering few who like to run the poetry business as a business are playing with Monopoly money.

Poetry, since it is an art, needs to be handled with care, and without all this City Boy guff. Bottom line: the best poets should be published. Now, here is the hard part, friends: what do anyone of us (really) mean by "the best"? That's the debate worth having. In public. Bravely.

Comments

BLUE said…
Todd:

thanks so much for this post! you made me think really hard about who my friends are (and who my friends are in poetry). you're right. friendship is the single strongest force acting on poetry, and we rarely talk about it.

full disclosure here before i go any further: i am a U.S.-based Salt author, and i truly respect Chris Hamilton-Emery and his courage in publishing.

i don't think that Chris' statement about befriending established poets-publishers does anything harmful to swell the already brimming pool of nepotism and apprenticeship that we find in contemporary poetry. he is simply acknowledging that what is ... is.

people publish people they know and/or have befriended. your wonderful examples of Eliot-Pound and Wordsworth-Coleridge only begin to hint at how long this practice has been in play.

but i don't think that most people who publish people they know and like ONLY publish their friends. if you can name someone an "enemy," i certainly believe there is some degree of passion there; you can love the work while despising the poet (and vice-versa). similarly, if you as an editor or publisher can make the decision to publish a poet, you are not "indifferent."

i guess i'm trying to say that i probably don't believe in "disinterested" editing and criticism. there is always some kind of connection -- good or bad, to the poet or the poems.

while i do heartily support an ethics of publishing and editing, i am not sure i buy that the general public or "intelligent creative people" don't care enough about new poetry. often, they don't (((know))) about new poetry, and the reason lies in *how* we market our works rather than in the audience's interest.

we can't leave poetry just in the hands of poets and expect that after we build our poems and our poetry books, our audiences will automatically come. we have to be willing to meet people where they are and give them what they don't yet know they need. that's what an "industry," a business, no matter how small, does.

i am very aware that poetry doesn't enjoy the luxury of bear-sized (sorry) world audiences that fiction and other genres might. so publishers, editors, poets AND readers must do poetry differently.

on some days, this means publishing poets you know -- not mediocre poets, not bullies ... but people who may be friends and who certainly are the best writers with the best manuscripts, period.

this is how we handle poetry and the art of poetry with care.

In public ... bravely, and with a deep admiration for you, who took on this important subject ...

light!
~Cherryl Floyd-Miller
Anonymous said…
Cheers Todd.

A part of this, and somethign you know well, is the emergence of actual "schools" of writing in the second half of the last century. And by schools I mean physical building where writers congregate to learn from and argue with each other.

This sense of community was the big surprise of my MFA program, even a few months after graduating I tend to buy journals that my peers are in, and attend their readings. This of course leads to shared alcohol and an exchange of ideas and further community. I wonder if the MFAs (and MAs, and now, PhDs) are not the contemporary, somewhat formalized equivalent of the history you spoke about.

Nice post. Yes, people are reading them. Yes, you should keep em coming.

-Jacob McArthur Mooney.
Anonymous said…
...and, speaking of Salt, that webjournal I told you about is now up. Filled with lots of handsome British faces. And at least one homely Canadian face...

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".