 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Sentinel
Poetry (Online) #37 3rd Anniversary Issue – December
2005 ISSN 1479-425X |
FEEDBACK
Readers’ comments on Issue #36 (November 2005)
I think of the poems, all of which
had something of worth, the one by Meghan Casey seemed to have reached an
originality of voice and purity of vision and truth that was particularly
striking.
The editorial by Amatoritsero was
quite fascinating; but did seem at times to expect a purity of intent, a rather
staid inner honesty from poets and writers that might be just a little too
strait-laced and restrictive. Surely in history there have been great writers
and poets (and artists) who are bad people? and who
were not even particularly sincere or honest in their creative motives and
outpourings?
Is it really possible to say, for
example, that a slave owner could not write decent poetry? When Rimbaud was
writing his stuff, surely he had within him (at the same time) the spirit and
potential to write great poetry, and equally the spirit and potential (albeit
dormant) to be a slave owner? Not only did that element in his character not prevent
his creativity, but maybe it was even a necessary ingredient in his creative
make-up. Could Engels not write revolutionary tracts
because he was a capitalist? Are his ideas thereby devalued? Didn't Leopardi, the Italian poet, write of love (and write well)
even if the poor chap never really got round to the practice of it? Can't a
writer write against his nature? against his social
position or environment? against his experience?
Should we ignore Lord Rochester's verse because he was just a diseased, privileged,
debauched aristocrat? or is there still some intrinsic
worth or truth in his stuff? What about artists such as Caravaggio and Cellini? (weren't they bad guys?)
Couldn't someone, for example, be a
complete waste of space morally, socially and individually and yet still manage
to write something that transcends his/her nature, outlook, and limitations?
Alan Hardy,
*****
I like "the engagement with the
truth" you pointed out with Wilfred Owen...I
believe it always take one to know one.
Those who have themselves suffered are best at this encounter because their
experience helps them sense the inner struggle of others, I have read the
Letter to Martha and also some of Dennis Brutus’ work in the book, Afroerotique and the truth in their poetry were so raw that
the power can be felt, that I, what I try to do being raw as I can be. Thanks
for the editorial
*****
The edition looks good. You’ve
really come into your own with this, especially with the editorials. This is
the second, I think. Good stuff. I love Davide Trame’s poetry, and will be checking out the others
too. As for the Guest Poet, Rob Mclennan,
there’s a way one imagines a poet would look – and he really cuts
it.
*****
Goodwork! My recent early hours visit to the
online home of the Sentinel Poetry magazine was worth all the sleeplessness.
The evident hard work of the Editor and Publisher provided readers with an
excellent choice of poems and accompanying visuals in the November Issue.
Thanking Victor Ehikhamenor for the celebratory colours of his painting, 'The
Masquerades Are Laeaving.' I lean towards Amatoritsero's editorial position in his essay on Truth and
Poetry. But I am also aware that in this continuing era of contextual readings
and interpretations, defining the truth of a poem and identifying what value to
place on that truth is sometimes like negotiating a minefield. For me, the poet
Malgorzata Kitowski was the
revelation of the November Sentinel. But there was also much to be gained from
the experience of the Guest Poet, Rob Mclennan, whom
Amatoritsero interviewed. Altogether, great stuff from the Sentinel. More!
More!
*****
I throway
salute O! I hope bodi dey
fine for inside cloth?
Now, congrats on your November
edition of the sentinel online mag; I profoundly
enjoyed those materials there and that editorial, Truth and Poetry which I read
and re-read.
You threw up profound issues in your
editorial that should, in my opinion, set the agenda for discourse as they
relate to Nigerian poetry. If what you outlined should be taken in for
discourse(s), I doubt if the magazine can take, too, the arguments that must
ensue.
I am interested in exploring those
heuristic possibilities and potents of that
editorial. And by so doing, mark and explore the boundaries of our poetics and
textual aesthestics. The experience should be the
Nigerian poetry. I think you have set out that explosive process of achieving
that.
How? I am trying to arrange and
engage the best of our traditions and experience (yourself,
Adesanmi, Nwankama, Oguibe,
Ogaga, Afam, Obiwu and possibly a female Nigerian
poet I have not settled on yet) in an email-assisted discourse. I will be
posing the questions arsing from your editorial and expect responses from poets,
scholars and critics as I have outlined above. The body of discourses will,
hopefully, form the subject for publication in Autumn
of 2006.
What do I need now? I ask that you
grant me permission to reproduce that editorial when requesting participants' partcipation in the email-based discussion.
Thanks in anticipation of your kind
permission.
*****
I have been reading bits and pieces
of Sentinel Poetry #36. In between things that one must do, I have found myself
returning again and again to Cecelia my laptop to get some more of that volume.
It is an impressive body of work, if I may say so. And an
eclectic group of thinkers. Wow! Like Alan Hardy, I found Ama's editorial (Truth and Poetry) quite fascinating. There
is plenty to agree with there and plenty to disagree with. But reasonable
people can agree to disagree. And I am a reasonable person ;-)
I am working on a piece that I
intend to be a response of some sorts to the issues raised in Ama's editorial. I have said quite a bit on the subject in
the past and the piece would actually be a compilation of my thoughts on
writing, the medium and the writer. And the writer's
obligation to the society. I will of course be writing on behalf of all
those pseudo-poets out there that are trying mighty hard to crowd out the
purists. If there is no urgency to finishing that piece, it is because I was
immensely comforted by the beautiful words of Ama's interviewee,
Rob Mclennan. He sums up the burden of my thoughts
thus:
"Poetry is not what it used to
be, and no longer needs to be what it started out doing. Poetry was originally
used for storytelling, and keeping an aural history. Thanks to novels, CNN,
movies, non-fiction, and various other media, poems no longer need to tell
stories. So the question becomes, what should a poem
be doing? If I have a story to tell, shouldn't I be using the novel or short
story form? If I have an issue to get across, shouldn't I be writing an essay?
If I have a history to tell, shouldn't I be writing a non-fiction book or producing
a documentary for television? It forces the consideration of the poem to move
into further territory, I think. I am interested in exploring that territory.
Of what a poem isn't "supposed" to be. But so many
of these considerations are completely arbitrary. It's poetry; we can do
whatever we want."
And hear him again:
" Was it Gertrude Stein who said that
writing has to be as close to living as possible? I don't remember. I could
have the credit completely wrong on this one. I have always considered (for my
own work), that to write of the world, I also have to live in the world. I find
it strange to hear a writer proudly exclaim that they don't own a television.
Good, bad or otherwise, television (and movie) culture is a part of the world
we live in. Mass culture doesn't necessarily mean bad. The division of high and
low culture as being "bad" vs. "good" I find rather
small-minded, and I think it causes the writing that comes out of it to lose a
whole bunch of credibility. I'm not arguing that a piece of writing can't speak
to me unless the author watches The Simpsons, but to
exclude a whole element of mass culture and still profess to work within the
bounds of the world seems a strange consideration to me (but I've never
pretended to understand too many things). I read multiple newspapers every day,
read poetry, fiction and non-fiction, watch new movies almost every Saturday
with my lovely daughter, watch hours of both good and bad television, and own
over six thousand comic books. There is something to be learned, I think, from
every medium."
I love this dude. He gets it, he
really does. Anyway, Ama, I promise to finish stapling
together my personal opinions and you must promise to give me space on your
journal to air my views. On behalf of all those interlopers
and pseudo poets out there. If you don't I'll publish them anyway. The
Internet rocks ;-)
All seriousness aside, Ama, please accept my sincere appreciation for all the work
that I am sure went into this volume. Reading it has been a sheer delight so
far. Lord Ama, much props for a job well done. You
are definitely pursuing your passion and it shows. I look forward to consuming
more of this in the future! I could say more but life calls. Stay tuned!
Sincerely,
Your favourite interloper,
pseudo-poet and pseudo-critic
-