Skip to main content

Motion Unbound

Andrew Motion has been a poet laureate that Eyewear could deal with - in the way that Pound had commerce with Whitman.

Motion has been good - more or less - for poetry in Britain, 1999-2009. His most important work may have been his poetry about bullying, and the Iraq War (related themes), but for most people, the Poetry Archive will seem the lasting monument. I personally regret never having been asked to record for that Archive, but then again, nothing about the poetry establishment in the UK will ever surprise me - I have lived here for over 6 years, and am still treated like an arriviste every day.

Anyway, back to Motion, whose support of my work with Oxfam and those poetry CDs was instrumental. His agreement to read at the first-ever Oxfam event way back in 2004 (five years ago now) meant that Wendy Cope also came onboard, as well as Agbabi and Dark. After that event, all the other great and talented poets were more willing to appear. I think Motion is a very fine, serious poet, and a complex, deeply intelligent, and sensitive man. I also think he is somewhat old-fashioned, but in a flexible and open-eyed way; he tried to more than cope with the rapid changes of our times - and embraced new poetics, and media, more often than not.

This post is occasioned by his article in The Guardian, today, marking his coming retirement. It's refreshingly honest, though perhaps still guarded (more will come later I assume). For one thing, he suggests that Hughes' "great poet" status may be a disservice to the man and work (which is ironic, since no one has done more in these isles to establish Heaney's great poet status than Motion, with, I think similar results there).

Another thing he points out is how negatively journalists, even the top editors, approach poetry, and poems - they are not news, and to be news, they need to be mocked or undermined. I have a similar thought. Recently, after launching The Manhattan Review Young British Poets anthology in London - and the night was a resounding success - a journalist approached me, to say he had wanted to write an article for The Sunday Times about the new generation of young poets, but his editor "didn't like poetry and thought it was dead" so had killed the story.

Too many UK journalists are sour on poetry, and infect the good news with their own toxins. In this way, the lively and burgeoning poetry communities of the UK, in all their variety and passion are daily diminished.

I agree with Motion that poetry, as he writes today, is an essential aspect of being human - or can be. Religion, poetry, myth, dance, music, drawing - all such "primitive" aspects of our imaginative existence tend to be shunted aside in a world devoted to management-speak, consumption and commerce, and science on the march - which is tragic, especially now, at a time when it is becoming evident that industry and science has gifted the world with an unpayable bill, and global warming may - Heaven forbid! - destroy us.

One thing nags at me, though, about Motion's complaint that writing engaged lyric poems about the Royals was taxing (for him, nearly impossible apparently) - it seems hard to fathom. I don't understand it, myself. Obviously, Motion believes poems must be occasioned by organically-sympathetic experiences, in much the same way as Wordsworth. If he followed the more mechanistic line of Larkin, let alone someone more ludic, or artifice-interested, like VF-T, he could well have created fascinating texts about the Royal Family - unmoored from any personal connection, true, but no less poetic in their exploration of language. The connection between spontaneous inspiration and poetic achievement that Motion inscribes in this essay will, in a small way, limit how poetry is understood in Britain - or, rather, reinforce 200-year-old beliefs.

Comments

Refreshingly honest, but showing the depths of confusion the poor chap's in. He wants it all ways, to be taken seriously as a poet by the media, to be the poet laureate, to retain its links with the royals because he:

"believe there's a strong argument in favour of the post remaining a royal appointment, because the association with the royal family, though bound to produce controversy in some quarters, is similarly bound to do a far larger amount of good for poetry. It recognises its existence at the centre of things. It helps to open doors, beyond which lie influence and money that can be helpful for poetry in all sorts of practical ways."

Poetry, for the good of *poetry* as an all encomposing abstract noun, the head and spokesperson for, naturally, is his good self, a man who believes, as the above quote proves, that who one knows with power and can open doors and can connect themselves with as a poet, is the way to take Poetry forward mto a larger audience who would take it all more seriously, if only the newspapers stopped treating poetry like an Aunt Sally and take the mickey at any opportunity.

He comes across as believing that if only people knew what he did and weren't so silly, we (ie him and his pals) could make it so poetry actually makes a difference.

I don't buy what he is saying. If what he says is true, how come Heaney doesn't get the mick taken out of him?

At the heart of this, is the belief that a poet laureate needs to be personally approved by the monarch, which is the protocol as it cureently stands. No one can start this job without the express permission of the queen, which makes the post one in which the poet is the personal poet of a monarch and for that they get 5000 pounds a year, which is nothing, considering that a poet (in the real sense of that word) will be capable of immortalising their subject. Then there's 15K expenses from the govt, which betrays that whoever's doing it is doing so because of a sense of duty, but this is the nub. to whom?

To a millioniare family on lottery sized state benifits, or to their country? If it is to their country, the queen doesn'tr come into it, and in this article, Motion comes across as someone blathering a litany of moans about his poor self, bleating and coming across as a whinger. He contradicts himself at every turn, talking about poetry as if he is the guardian of it, and listing the commissions he wrote - and I have read the age attack, the second in line is doing fine ditty, and perhaps it is for this reason, the quality of his verse, why he gets mocked?

Unfortunately, the oxo types get lauded at 21 as a genius when young and pretty and its all down hill from then on, as they get shown preference on the strength of where they wrote their earliest juvenelia, win the Newdigate, a job on the nod and wink and a slow descent into mediocrity, seems to be the norm for these privileged types who are just a pawn in the game to keep a monarch, on top of a pyramid, Your Majesty, not mister, do you think all this deference, protocol and what not, makes a difference, mister S?

ake the good health of poetry
Sheenagh Pugh said…
Surely though, he's right when he says that it's harder to write on a subject one isn't engaged with? I've done it, for commissions, but was conscious that it didn't turn out very well, to the point where I eventually turned down a commission to write on something that really didn't interest me. Being ludic or artifice-interested is all very well, but exploring language in the service of a theme you find uninteresting is going to seem a bit like a waste of time and effort, no? Like translating a novel or poem you dislike or just don't rate - sure, the skill with language required is the same, but it feels wasted on the work.
EYEWEAR said…
Hi Sheenagh. Thank you for your comment. I am not sure I accept that saying "it's harder to write on a subject one isn't engaged with" is sufficient excuse for a creative writer - simply because one of the tasks of a writer is to become able to be engaged by any subject. The trick is, I suppose, to find an imaginative link between self and subject. But of course, I agree, it is "harder" - but not to the point Motion shoul be complaining about it. I mean that, in his special case, recall, he is lamenting the challenge of finding something to say about public events and The Royal Family - after he accepted the role of the Poet Laureate. Now, I have little sympathy for anyone who complains about a job they themselves have agreed to do - especially one as prestigious as this. Motion's latest collection has appeared (I have a review copy) just as these new interviews appear across the media - he has a platform for public access for his poetry that no other poet in Ireland or the UK has. Not even Heaney is in the news as much as Motion. Now, there is nothing wrong with this. But surely it is absurd to complain about having to sweep the stables if one is Hercules.
Sheenagh Pugh said…
one of the tasks of a writer is to become able to be engaged by any subject.

Why? Given there are umpteen people already engaged with, and capable of writing about, sport or child-rearing, why should Fred Farnsbarn, whose interests lie in quite other places, bother himself trying to engage with them? I take your point that if one accepts a commission, of course one gets on with it as best one can, but I don't see why a writer shouldn't simply refuse the shilling, ignore areas of experience that don't do it for him and concentrate on what he's good at. George Herbert, after all, ignored all subjects except man's relationship with God; Austen barely mentions the politics of her day because she's far more interested in emotional relationships.
EYEWEAR said…
Dear Sheenagh, we seem to be arguing over increasingly small ground. I often wonder why poets do this. There are surely broader issues to explore. Anyway, if you wish me to reply, I shall. When I say writers should "become able to be engaged by any subject" I do not mean that they then should - ad absurdum - write about any subject, or less and less interesting (to them) ones. When we train surgeons, or soldiers, or violinists, or pilots, for any skill within their range of expected experiences, we do not then demand they crash land or slice eyeballs at will. Your Mr. Farnsbarn can rest assured, he need not write about children or sport, unless he wishes to. But, were I working with him, to develop his skills AS A CREATIVE WRITER - and here I am speaking of pedagogy - I would certainly encourage him to precisely stray outside his comfort zone, at some stage, to try and engage with sport, and children. Poets, perhaps, can narrow focus, but novelists, less so. Tolstoy left hardly anything out. Dickens, the same. Austen, despite your comments, includes a lot of things in her world, and I am sure she was not - in a strictly egoistic persona sense - interested in them all. However, all of this comes down to the main point, which we agree on - if you take a commision, you shouldn't then complain it was hard to write on an assigned topic. I do think the wider problem with the Laureate poems is that they exist precisely in the eye of the mainstream - poised to receive public attention - and therefore expose a fact that few poets care to admit - even poems aimed at broad popular topics (like the Queen) - and even poems that are sentimental (like birthdays or weddings) no longer excite much interest among the media and the "average person" - BECAUSE POETRY IS NO LONGER A PUBLIC, POPULAR ART FORM THAT MOST PEOPLE TURN TO, EVEN IN TIMES OF JOY OR SORROW. That is to say, despite the Duffy and Armitage intervnetions, despite the Iraq War poems, despite Four Weddings and a Funeral, and dozens of anthologies aimed at reaching for a wider audience, poems are now a foreign art form - seen as confusing, elitist - as broken machines of little use. After all, we live in a world where most young people buy few or no books, and have no interest, even, in albums or CDs. The digital realm is changing how people perceive tangible things - and 20th century poetry was very thing-oriented; even emotions, now, are differently-mediated (see the response to the death of Ms. Goody). I feel that Andrew Motion was on the cusp of all this change, and must have sensed the challenge of creating public works for a public without interest in said works. The alternatives - performance poetry with a tinge of comedy, or austere Cambridge language poetry - both answer that problem (see CK Stead on this for the moderns in relation to Kipling) in various ways - one either seeks the audience by pandering, or one turns away from a mass audience, as part of the theory of one's practice. What does begin to wane is the idea of a middle ground - precisely the so-called "Mainstream" so many poets quarrel over in the UK. As I have been arguing, the crisis is, this is a phantom ideal. It is unfortunate, but poetry needs to rethink, now, what it is for, and what the audiences are - and if, and why, it should worry about such things. Art forms wither when not used imaginatively.
Sheenagh Pugh said…
BECAUSE POETRY IS NO LONGER A PUBLIC, POPULAR ART FORM THAT MOST PEOPLE TURN TO, EVEN IN TIMES OF JOY OR SORROW

Not sure why you're shouting, but didn't loads of people leave terrible poems around the streets after Diana died? Wasn't that turning to poetry in a time of sorrow? The father of that little lad in Liverpool, Rhys something, who got shot, also wrote poems in response, and they were rather better than might be expected. I don't think people have ever turned to poetry in times of joy - who wants to share joy? - but in sorrow, yes, and they still do.

We were discussing (not arguing about, IMO) the issues raised in your post. "There are surely broader issues to explore" - very probably, but I was responding to this one, that's all.
Anonymous said…
There are two problems with the poet laureateship:

1. It's an anachronism that harks back to a time when powerful people engaged poets to praise them.

2. No-one can decide whether the incumbent is supposed to be a poet or an evangelist / administrator on behalf of poetry. Motion generally gets praised for the latter role.

In my view it should be scrapped altogether. we don't have an equivalent post for music, painting or an other art. We don't need one for poetry.

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...".