Carol Ann Duffy v Mills & Boone

[abu nuwas]

Well. It does sound like a fairly nasty case of sour grapes, or perhaps yet another instance of a feudal remnant desperate to hold on to class divisions and trying to use the tried-and-true academic snobbery to do so.

I disagree with Ms Duffy in many cases and I fear I don't much like her poetry, but the argument is not one of preference, it is one of the right to "democratise" poetry. How dare a career academic from a clearly privileged background demand that poetry remain in the realm of the elite?

For the sake of balance, I have sought out some of Sir Geoffrey's poetry and I confess, I prefer his -- but his attitude is appallingly exclusionist.

On the other hand, the post of Poet Laureate is and always has been about politics. I don't believe it's possible for a Laureate to properly represent poetry when being unable -- by the nature of the appointment -- to express anything contrary to an official nationalist stance.

It is interesting that Sir Geoff got his job, after Ruth Padel was made to resign, following an alleged smear campaign against another candidate, the bloke that wrote Omeros. I suppose you are right about taking the Laureateship, though patronage outright, has at times produced masterpieces-- Maecenas, in ancient Rome, was a very wealthy man who indulged in this, and a great many of the famous names took his shilling, or denarius.

What was rather good, was to see on this same page, there was another article, arguing that it was not Shakespeare's words, but his novel use of grammar which differentiated him from his contemporaries who, it is claimed, produced as many new words, pro rata, as he did. But there was no proper reference, and the argument put seemed feeble (he inverted) , and I am sure there must have been more to it than that. Still, almost an entire page devoted to matters poetic....