My feelings about it are mixed too. A proper paid gig at a reputable poetry night at Liverpool's The Bluecoat arts centre is not to be sniffed at, and a review of any sort is a novelty in the easy-come, easy-go world of open mic nights.
I have my share of rejections and am generally not hurt or angered by them despite their implied criticism of or distaste for my work. But a review is much more personal.
The reviewer started by saying he's seen me at open floors: "I have to say that her work is, generally, not to my taste and I normally wrote her off as being the “Beryl Cook of poetry”, rather in the same mould as Pam Ayres."
He liked some of my poems ("It was a pleasure, then, to hear her reading some of her more serious works") and believes me able, when pushed to "knuckle down and compose really good poetry" but I'm afraid 'tedious' 'tiresome' and 'not very original' are all in there too.
Oh, alright, read it for yourselves - I'm in the middle.
I don't mind being compared to Pam, but I'm not keen on tedious and tiresome, and I think I'm quite original. It's tricky putting together a 20min set of poetry when your style veers wildly from serious lyrical poems to romping rhymes and dreadful puns. I like to mix it up, with something for everyone. Maybe I've got it wrong and for a proper poetry reading I should stick to serious poems?
The same reviewer raved (quite rightly) about Pauline Rowe who headlined the evening. Her poems are stunning, her delivery calm. But poetry nights where everyone does beautiful, serious poetry can be too much - too beautiful, too serious. Am I a philistine?
I like to make people think, yes, but I see myself as primarily an entertainer, an ambassador for poetry in all its guises. Also, I'd been billed by the organiser thus: "Clare Kirwan will challenge and amuse with her lively, socially engaged poetry" so I planned around that.
So although the review is a wee bit hurtful in places, I will treat it like any rejection - as a matter of personal taste. What pleases me more is that various strangers came up to me later to say how much they enjoyed my poems - each naming a different favourite. Even the girl on the door said she thought I was brilliant "...an' I wouldn't say tha' if it wasn't true, 'cos I'm a right cow."
* Ah, you don't know the saying? The curate's egg is 'good in parts'
I think you are lovely.
ReplyDeleteThank you. That's alright then.
DeleteI was at that event. I thought your set was perfectly judged, demonstrating your wide range as a poet. Dave Jackson & the Cathedral Mountaineers were energetic and exciting. One friend went straight home and ordered the CD from Amazon.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of destructive and vicious review says much more about the critic than it does about the performers. In all, rather a nasty piece of work ...
Who's this? When it says anonymous it could be me writing to myself!! But thanks for the support anyway 8-)
DeleteIt's because blimmin' Googlemail or whatever it's called won't let me log on as myself (which is not YOURself) so I shall maintain this 'air of mystery' and not enlighten you as to my identity.
DeleteBTW, I spoke to five other people who were at the event and they all say that this review is 'bitter bollocks'- which might be a popular dish in the - ahem - more exotic dining places of the globe - but which has no place at all in the poetry world.
Denis Joe is pandering to the stereotype that poets are all at each others' throats, whereas the poets I know are all mutually supportive and give constructive feedback, happy to celebrate the success of others etc etc. I don't want to be in the company of anyone who thinks the way to self-aggrandise is to destroy the work of others. Meh.
Joe can now be filed away in the folder entitled 'Disgruntled Poets' - thankfully a slim collection of four men of a certain age and one highly irritating woman.
Aha! Now I know who you are... it was the mention of the DPs (but I thought they were ALL men... who's the woman?)
DeleteI shall tell you over tea & cake - somewhere SOON.
DeleteWarra we like?
DeleteExactly, "Warra we like?". Well gutless for a start, having to hide behind an anonymous tag in order to be bitchy.
DeleteClare (my new Co - Host) at Poets Corner..If you will excuse the terminology 'I have seen you perform many times' and at least thrice as a 'Guest Poet' and have heard the applause and been proud to be an 'applaude'many times lol..being a Poet is not just about sounding like Christine Rozzetti or Pam Ayres if you are a woman or John Milton or Philip Larkin if you are man!
ReplyDeleteIt is about being true to yourself and being the best Poet that you can be.
It's not about serious poetry or performance poetry or attack poetry or political poetry etc, etc, Clare 'in my book' you are well read, well versed and well respected..Yes lively and entertaining as well! - It is not a bloody crime to be so..I don't know who did your critique etc..but the word 'Pompous Arse' springs to mind! Looking forward to seeing you and hearing you again soon! - My Bests and see you at Glassfire on the 21 Feb!
Thanks Gray! (but isn't Pompous Arse two words ;-)
DeleteI'm so sorry you were hurt by this review. It feels a bit like being told your baby's ugly, doesn't. But although it wasn't a kind review, it certainly wasn't all bad, and it only expressed the views of a single person in an audience. I do hope you're feeling better by now. I'm sure you gave pleaseure to many people (as well as the girl on the door!).
ReplyDeleteThank you Frances. I'm not massively hurt - but it does sting a bit...
DeleteWhat an arse of a reviewer! I think you write some steller stuff!
ReplyDeleteAs for Pam Eyres, it is hard to knock a millionaire in poetry really.
Plus she READS well and that's become as much of a hallmark of her work as anything else. The majority of poets, particuarly the more serious ones are HORRENDOUS readers of their work, as if they have a sort of scarcely-concealed contempt for their audience, the mugs they presumably want to sell their books to!
There's far too much preciousness about poetry. And the inpenetrable kind where a poet has literally done a Jackson Pollock with the contents of their head - well who needs it? Not me.
I had a quick look at some of that guys other reviews. I preferred the earlier ones. It is a shame, because when he knuckles down to it he can produce reviews that don't sound quite so patronising all the way through.
ReplyDeleteMind you, a review is a review. Good review or bad review, it means people are paying attention to what you are doing. In my book that means you must be pretty good, yes?
LOL! You have cheered me up immensely, Ben! I wish I'd thought of that first! 8-)
DeleteIt seems to me Denis Joe is one of those high-brow literary types who look down on anything people deem popular.
ReplyDeletePam Ayres did an immense amount in getting people to like poetry again; funny poetry, popular poetry, it doesn't matter. People are reading it again.
I dare say he would look down on Benjamin Zephaniah's 'popular' status, unless he's a personal friend. The least he could have done was spell Pam's name correctly, or was that another indication of his dismissive attitude?
If you're going to review someone, there's absolutely no valid reason for tearing them down, Say what you want but do it with panache and dignity.
"...so too it is the case with the poetry events. If the person on stage isn’t whinging about how they lost the love of their life, or ranting bile about their hatred for those ‘lowlifes’ from the north of the city..."
Methinks Denis Joe didn't want to be there.
I met him briefly at the event (he wanted me to send a pic for the article... and I wasn't rude to him or anything... honest!) - he didn;t seem especially highbrow... he seemed a bit sad.
DeleteKudos to you for creating work and being willing to go on stage and share it with others. Please keep doing what you are doing and mixing up your content. It sounds great and if I could afford a trip to your part of the world, seeing you perform would be on my to do list!
ReplyDeleteAs for the so-called critic, I found some interesting quotes about others who share his profession of running others into the ground' Here they are:
"A good review from the critics is just another stay of execution."
Dustin Hoffman
"After all, one knows one's weak points so well, that it's rather bewildering to have the critics overlook them and invent others."
Edith Wharton
"Critics have their purposes, and they're supposed to do what they do, but sometimes they get a little carried away with what they think someone should have done, rather than concerning themselves with what they did."
Duke Ellington
"Having the critics praise you is like having the hangman say you've got a pretty neck."
Eli Wallach
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST:
"If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn't swim."
Margaret Thatcher
Aw, thanks for sharing these... 'pretty neck' ha ha! (Although that last one's a bit scary isn't it?)
DeleteYou never know - if I ever get back to New York I'll try and get a gig somewhere and let you know!
An Oxford don once declared to me that, "Poetry is a house with many rooms." Poor Denis Joe has obviously been spending far too much time in the smallest of them.
ReplyDeleteAh - but that's the one with the throne in it!
DeleteIdeal if you have something to get out of your cistern.
DeleteI'm not going to let it bog me down
DeleteI always knew you were a closet optimist.
DeleteI've usually got a wee smile on my face!
DeleteYes, reviewers, like everyone else, are subjective beings, not objective. Speaking for myself, totally objectively (!), the poems of yours that I've read are incredibly good--and one of the things I admire most about your writing is your ability to use humor to make a serious point, all in stunning, original lines. That is oh, so hard to do. So, please, you keep on keepin' on. I've got your back, and I think there are a whole load of us out here who feel the same.
ReplyDeleteAw thanks, hon! *blushes*
DeleteYou are good, don't let that review convince you otherwise. I love listening to your poems and you are a great performer as wellas a great writer
ReplyDeleteOh and he doesn't think much of carol Ann Duffy either so you are in good company .....
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe audience in our heads when we write can be vastly varied and distinctly different than what we encounter is real life. If you have pleased the voices in your head, you have succeeded.
ReplyDeleteShhh... I said not to mention 'the voices in my head'! ;-)
DeleteHi Clare
ReplyDeleteI coordinate the Manchester Salon and published the review, and many thanks for pinting out the spelling mistake in the review which I've corrected as I like things to be right. Hopefully that won't spoil the jibe you make around that - I prefer the message to carry through without the distractions of spelling mistakes. Perhaps you could say that he didn't originally spell Pam's name correctly, but then maybe that's just a little distracting too.
Anyway, although some comments may sting a little, I thought it was quite balanced and is indeed a subjective thing. Without airing subjective appreciations of art we could never get a balance of what's considered higher quality art to aspire to. The fact that Denis Joe prefers Pauline Rowe's poetry to yours may be his unbalanced subjective view that isn't merited on balance, or may be to do with Pauline's poetry being of a higher quality.
I don't see anything wrong with highlighting qulitative differences as surely that is the cornerstone of developing meaningful aspirations to better ourselves. I profoundly disagree with the direction of some comments above aimed at being supportive of you, where there's a pat on the head and you tried your best approach. Whilst it may sound nice, to judge the quality of poetry on the basis of how hard you think someone tried, not only isn't helpful to the aspiring poet, it most certainly doesn't help develop a collective assessment of quality across society of what is best society has to offer.
I will try and programme a return to the issue of poetry and the popularity of poetry nights where the majority of participants are wannabe poets. And I know I know very little of poetry, but open mic poetry nights seem to be about more than developing high quality poetry, and not necessarily to the benefit of that poetry.
Simon Belt
I think my review of it was balanced too. I said it was mixed and quoted both positives and negatives - but it naturally got me navel-gazing and musing whether I should have chosen to perform only my serious poetry rather than mix it up - even if that was how I was billed by the organisers and the paying audience clearly enjoyed it. I'm still struggling with this.
DeleteI hope my comments have not gone down the route of a pat on the head and good try! I have read and enjoyed poetry or years and have been lucky enough to hear and meet some incredibly talented poets. While I want to support you personally I can also say with complete honesty I find your work intelligent, moving and at times amazingly original and I have seen how an audience of extremely literate people were captivated by it. As with so any things in life poetry is hugely subjective but this is my opinion for what it's worth
ReplyDeleteFair point then CG. I'm not familiar with Clare's poetry, but I am familiar with people ignoring quality and simply praising the effort someone puts in. For me quality should be assessed in its own right and making claims of the effort put in confuses and potentially demeans actual quality. Glad you're not meaning to make a call to the effort put in and simply focussing on the quality.
DeleteThanks CG - I think any pats on the head here are from people who aren't poets or that into poetry but enjoy the blog and want to be supportive. I appreciate your comments. 8-)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking time to read the review. As Simon says, there is an element of subjectivity, but a dislike of unserious poetry is not a dislike of the poet, just as my praise for Pauline Rowe’s work is not a reflection of her as a ‘colleague’ (that stung, considering I make that point in the review).
ReplyDeleteYes I do take poetry seriously and I do find it sad that the promotion of poetry, not just in Liverpool, is not the promotion of the art. I would not enjoy a Schubert lieder concert that featured some wannabe X-Factor celeb (not that I’m suggesting you belong in that category).
Unlike most other arts, there seems to be an embarrassment in this country about serious poetry and the tendency to throw poetry into the category of ‘entertainment’ illustrates that point. I would not discount that art can be entertaining, but it is the promotion of poetry as some form of escapism that concerns me. Any artist worth their salt, should not be content just pander to the immediate needs of an audience, but should be looking at their work as something that challenges and treats its audience as intelligent and capable of appreciating a work of art on its own term and, ultimately says something universal. Whilst humour does have its place (as an emotional response) in serious work it is not the be all and end all. If all that is expected of a work is simply to get a laugh what more can a piece do?
There is a distinction between art and entertainment. The former puts demands on the audience to engage, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually, with a piece. The latter allows the audience the pleasure of diversion from the everyday. Both of these phenomena are essential to human existence, but both have distinct impacts.
I do not want to suggest that one is of less importance than the other and for the artist or entertainer there are different demands put on their skills. However to say that ” Pam Ayres did an immense amount in getting people to like poetry again”, as Paul Andrew Russell does, is rather like saying that the Beatles got me into classical music.
Ultimately the review was not about you but about the promotion of poetry. And it is the promotion of poetry that concerns me. The manner in which it is promoted as entertainment is nothing but elitist snobbery as it’s starting point is that people cannot handle serious work (are they too stupid?). What is interesting ,and suggestive of the nepotism of poetry cliques, in general, is that not one of the respondents on this thread have criticised what I had to say, the comments were generally of the ‘white knight’ type: out to defend the maiden’s honour, some of the more gutless hide behind the ‘Anonymous’ tag.
My approach to reviews are critical. I draw on theory as much as I draw on experience (another aspect of snobbery is its disdain for anything that might appear intellectual). The Manchester Salon is a debating society and I write my reviews bearing that in mind: to stimulate debate. Apparently it seems that those who have come to your defence (though not a defence of poetry, note)are not up to such a simple challenge. No wonder the state of poetry in this country is so poor.
As I said above, I have one foot in entertainment, one foot in art. I agree that poetry has an odd status in this country - like an embarrassing relative nobody likes to mention. Although I read and write serious poems, and probably should have gone with more serious at this venue, I can't help thinking that if someone who is not into poetry (hated it at school perhaps, or believes it to all be elitist and/or incomprehensible) finds something in it they can enjoy or connect to, they will be more open to it in the future. If a funny poem does that (and I almost always have a serious point in those too), then I don't have a problem with that, because it's an entry point. I grew up with Pam Ayres, Belloc's cautionary tales etc but now enjoy serious poetry too
DeleteAs you will have gathered from this, I disagree with you - I believe it is perfectly possible for The Beatles to provoke an interest in music which ultimately encompasses classical and more.
You do have some valid points and debate is good (although I was more surprised yesterday that comments aren't enabled on Manchester Salon than I am today!) but it isn't really fair to blame my followers for the 'state of poetry in this country' because they react in a way you don't consider intellectual enough - that is snobbery - and I know you hate that!
I am late to this debate and have just read the review. I am disappointed by the caustic attack on Dave Jackson which was VERY personal ... Would Mr Joe have made any of these comments to Dave Jackson's face? I suspect not. Note that the poetry cafe advertises that it has a musical element to the evening, as does Poets & Players in Manchester. No-one has complained about it before.
ReplyDeleteThe review was about scoring points (at the expense of others) rather than making points. If Dennis wants to have a constructive debate about the nature of poetry as an art then he could do that in a comment-enabled forum. I note that he has written (and deleted) several responses on this thread and hasn't taken the criticisms of HIS criticism very well. Funny that ...
Who is that masked man?
DeleteFirst off: I didn't delete my posts, they didn't show, and I attempted to repost them. I assume Clare has blocked any further reposts (so I don't know if you will get to read this). My review concerned the fact that poetry is not taken seriously in Britain and always needs the element of entertainment. The Poetry Cafe happens to be the most convenient, but the same applies to many other 'events' of this kind. As for Dave jackson, I wouldn't have known him from Adam. I was seriously baffled as to his presence and I found him to be just another local singer/songwriter, which contradicted the build up. So it cannot be personal as I don't know him and have nothing to gain from the movement of his fortunes. I'm sure he is a really good bloke and other people like his work. I just cannot see what he was doing at the Poetry Cafe. There was nothing exceptional about his lyrics or singing.
What I would like to know is why some respondents are so shy.
All the best!
Presumably you weren't listening to Jeanette Winterson on BBC Radio 4 this morning, when she comprehensively demolished the elitist (and wholly self-serving) divisions between 'art' and 'entertainment'?
ReplyDeleteNot enough to say that (in your opinion) music has no place at a poetry event.
From your review: ‘The whole thing was a bit sad really... others sounded as though they were written (and rejected) for an 80s David Lynch film soundtrack ... they are pretty naff really ... the band were quite ordinary ... They just seemed mundane ... the lyrics they were okay at best, and squirmish in other places ...'
(An overuse of qualifiers, if you don't mind me saying. Something to bear in mind when you next compose a review?)
And when your critique is critiqued, you provide another SEVEN paragraphs of self-serving justification.
Finally, the comment: 'provoked one audience member to shout out something anti-Catholic, like some Guardian-reading Asperger Syndrome sufferer' - do you actually mean Tourette's? Or is using a disability as an insult just part of your 'critical approach'?
Actually, don't answer that, it's self-evident.
"Tourette's" That's it1 thank you.
DeleteAnd Ms Winterson is entitled to her opinion. It doesn't mean it is right, just as mine may not be. but I will hold to it until someone can provide a rebuttal.
All the best!
Coming to this very late in the day I know, but yes, did seem like the reviewer didn't want to be there from the outset. Have seen quite a few online reviews of various events recently that just didn't tally with mine - or others - view of how enjoyable that particular evening was. The modus operandi of a lot of reviewers seems to be to inject a kind of retrospective tedium over (most) of the proceedings, except the bit that involved their friend or friends. The internet gives a lot of power to people who don't really deserve it, that's all I have to say.
ReplyDelete