[Tim Love]

The Next Generation poetry event happened in the UK last year. Fortunately Poetry is news that stays news. Thanks to my local public library I've recently had a chance to read about half of the 20 poets chosen to lead UK poetry into the future. I knew it was a PR drive. What I hadn't realised is quite how much of a publisher-driven stunt it was. See http://www.poetrybookshoponline.com/next_generation.asp
for details.

In any anthology or selection of this type there are bound to be items whose inclusion seems inexplicable. About 20% fall into that category for me. Maz, Margaret Moore etc seem more interesting and youthful than several of these NextGen poets.

Each poet has a narrow range, and the majority of the poets seem to have gone to the same workshop. The stylistic range is from anecdotal to mute-martian, written in broken prose. Exceptions are Hannah (who rhymes), Oswald (who's non-mainstream) and Agbabi (who's non-WASP). Tokenism?

There's seeming censorship against the academic and the abstract, which might in turn account for the limited range of genres. The diction's educated but rarely intellectual. It's strange that though the poets "explore issues" like Race, Beauty, etc, they shy away from any connection with experts in Sociology, Aesthetics, etc, prefering to present an incident at a bus-stop or overheard conversation at the Tate Museum's canteen. You might object that poetry's not supposed to be sociology. I'd reply by saying that there's no reason why poetry shouldn't call upon the expertise of those in other fields. By not doing so it risks marginalising itself even more. I think the rule of thumb should be to show what can be shown, and tell the rest, rather than restrict oneself to writing only about what can be shown. Poetry's not Pictionary.

You may have heard that we in the UK are still relaxed about Form. Maybe, but judging from this selection, Form's on its last legs. For many of the poets Form means leaving every third line blank. When poets lapse into meter it seems rather clumsy to me. For example, I find this couplet a misjudged, Nashy mouthful

while an old dandelion unpicks her shawl
and one by one the small spent oak flowers fall

and I don't know why the following has been lamed.

and row as far as Totnes
and there get out and stand,
outcasts of the earth, kings
of the green island England.

Imagery is in general disappointing. One poet describes chestnuts as "Miniature mines"! Lack of ambition abounds. As the publicity blurb says of one collection, these are "poems that remind us why memory is such an important human faculty". Too true.

So please don't judge us Brits by these poets. I wish I could excuse them by virtue of their youth, but there was no upper age limit - I'm younger than some of these flagbearers.

[Gregory Dowling]

While it was inevitably a publishing stunt, it strikes me that the first New Generation campaign did choose some very good names - including Michael Donaghy, Glyn Maxwell, Simon Armitage, Don Paterson and (much under-rated) Elizabeth Garrett.

I don't know most of this recent list, but Gwyneth Lewis, at least, seems to me to be a good poet; I only have her first volume but she comes across as a very original voice.

And Sophie Hannah is, even if over prolific, generally good fun.

[Tim Love]

I'll be reading a few more of them over the weekend. Yes, Lewis and Hannah are worth a look. At the moment it seems to me that the women are less samey than the men are.

[Katy Evans-Bush]

Well I think that, like most lists of this kind, this one is as noticeable for who isn't on it as for who is. And there are some names on it that surprise me. We're talking, not about young people per se but about poets who have emerged in the last ten years. Hence the age range, whereas the original promotion was specifically for under-40's. (And, good! Who says you have to come on in your twenties? Look at Wallace Stevens!)

And Donaghy did call that first one “an attempt to actually manufacture a group of poets in the way that television tried to manufacture the Monkees as a pop group.” In other words, don't assume the poets themselves buy the hype.

Owen Sheers, for example, is on record as thinking that his poetry isn't much good - he says he prefers his fiction.

But I think we can look at what the list says, what view this particular arrangement presents of where poetry is at, or heading to. It's a pretty mainstream list, though Patience Agbabi is a bit more performance-y. There are a lot of women on it. And there's a broad age range. But if the group as a whole seems samey, isn't that down to the judges' tastes, rather than the real state of poetry in the UK? For instance where's John Stammers? He'sup-&-coming - in fact, arrived, I'd say. His work is lush, sophisticated, stylistically dazzling, formally impressive, allusive, cool - and totally unlike anything on this list. Where's Roddy Lumsden? He has a wry, hip take on things and a characterisation within his poems like no one else currently writing. They're both fond of word play and teasing out meanings, and both have a subtle command of tone which I'd venture that they both deploy in ways many of the listed writers don't.

I'm still gutted about Dorothy Molloy dying just before her first collection came out last year (from Faber); she was exciting.

But even if we say there isn't so much variation - consider that England itself is smaller than NEW England. How much variety can a place so small produce in any given year? And if they've all been to the same workshop (which they haven't - but even if they had), how many good workshops ARE there in a small place? How different will they BE? (I know; & the Poetry School is running a course on avant-garde poetry this term, & another on prose poems, anyway.)

So this is devil's-advocate stuff here, but I thought I'd throw out a few questions. There are poets I admire on the list.

KEB

[Tim Love]

KEB: But I think we can look at what the list says, what view this particular arrangement presents of where poetry is at, or heading to. .... But if the group as a whole seems samey, isn't that down to the judges' tastes, rather than the real state of poetry in the UK? - and who chose the judges? If the event were a book-selling ploy (nothing wrong with that) it would try to offer a range of entry-level books and keep big publishers happy. 1 poet's from scotland (he is/was a publisher's poetry editor so he had to go in). 6 poets have strong Welsh connections. Maybe the Patterson/Crawford generation in Scotland has left no progeny. Or maybe Scotland has nothing to match the clout of Seren, the book publisher from Wales.

The books I'm reading this weekend are making me eat my words a little - they're not such easy reads, and Francis at least cares about words and line-breaks.

• "Dragons" is a poem where all 38 lines end in "dragon".
• "Invocation"'s 44 words all start with "w".
• "Spending the Night in the Temple" has 9 sections. Each section has 10 lines, the 1st having 13 syllables and each subsequent line having a syllable less than the previous one. The lines are organised into 4 stanzas - 4, 3, 2, 1 lines.

[Katy Evans-Bush]

Good heavens. That's Matthew Francis? Fascinating; I'm reminded of Dylan Thomas' contortionist antics.

Ah, well. Who knows how these things are chosen? Are you reading all 25? Systematically? I'd love to hear about it as you go on...

KEB

[Tim Love]

Just for the record...I've read all 20 now. Some short notes on each are available. Here's the summary

The Next Generation poetry event happened in the UK last year. Fortunately Poetry is news that stays news. Thanks to my local public library I've recently had a chance to read the 20 poets chosen to lead UK poetry into the future. I read most of them quickly, giving none of them the time they no doubt deserve - forgive me God for I have skimmed.
The <A HREF=http://www.poetrybookshoponline.com/next_generation.asp>pamphlet</A> includes a useful little article on "Reading Poetry" and blurbs about the authors. Seeing the 20 blurbs in the pamphlet one after the other was too much for me,

• "It is difficult to pin down Nick Drake's poetry, which makes his book... all the more pleasurable to read"
• "There's rarely any doubt about what Sophie Hannah means in any of her poems. She is a communicator"

but one can't really blame the poets for that.
I knew it was a PR drive. What I hadn't realised is quite how much of a publisher-driven stunt it was. If the event were a book-selling ploy (nothing wrong with that) it would try to offer a range of entry-level books and keep big publishers happy. Only 1 poet's from Scotland (he is/was a publisher's poetry editor so he had to go in). 6 poets have strong Welsh connections. Maybe the Patterson/Crawford generation in Scotland has left no progeny. Or maybe Scotland has nothing to match the poet-inspiring (or arm-twisting) Seren, the book publisher from Wales.
Once the publishers are happy the next step would be to throw in a few jokers, making sure you don't tread on too many PC sensibilities. If you can find a poet who can represent more than one minority, so much the better.
In any anthology or selection of this type there are bound to be items whose inclusion seems inexplicable. About 20% fall into that category for me. The striking features of the selections are

• Stylistic Range - Nearly every poet has a narrow range (i.e. "has a voice"), and many of the poets I've read seem to have gone to the same workshop. The stylistic range of the main core is from anecdotal lyric to mute-martian lyric, written in broken prose. Exceptions are Hannah (who rhymes), Draycott (who's like McGuickian), Oswald (who's non-mainstream) and Agbabi (who's non-WASP). Drake (narrow range but not too mainstream. Gay Interest) and Francis (wide range) are the male exceptions.
• Non-Intellectualism - There's seeming censorship against the academic and the abstract, which might in turn account for the limited range of genres (and the amount of nostalgia for childhood). The diction's educated but rarely intellectual. It's strange that though the poets "explore issues" like Race, Beauty, etc, they shy away from any connection with experts in Sociology, Aesthetics, etc, prefering to present an incident at a bus-stop or overheard conversation at the Tate Museum's canteen. You might object that poetry's not supposed to be sociology. I'd reply by saying that there's no reason why poetry shouldn't call upon the expertise of those in other fields. By not doing so it risks marginalising itself even more. I think the rule of thumb should be to show what can be shown, and tell the rest, rather than restrict oneself to writing only about what can be shown. Poetry's not Pictionary.
• Form/Word blindness - You may have heard that we in the UK are still relaxed about Form. Maybe, but judging from this selection, Form's on its last legs. For many of the poets Form means leaving every third line blank. When poets (excepting Hannah) lapse into meter it can seem rather clumsy. Many of the poets (Francis is the most obvious exception) seem not to take the letter or word layer of construction into account - they're thinking thoughts, then writing them down rather than having sound/sense/typography all active during the creation process.
• Range of imagery - Imagery is in general disappointing. One poet describes chestnuts as "Miniature mines"! Another compared a bus at night to an acquarium in the dark. Particularly striking is the lack of contemporary references. Computers, mobile phones, games shows and cheap flights barely figure even in the recent publications, and War, Politics or World Affairs aren't alluded to let alone addressed.

My preferences currently are (in order) Petit, Francis, Sprackland, Hill, Foley, Shukman, Drake, Lewis, Oswald, Flynn, Robinson, Rees-Jones, Polley, Hannah, Dalton, Riordan, Draycott, Sheers, Agbabi, Smith.
By temperament I'm much closer to Francis than Draycott, which is reflected in the ordering. I can understand why Hannah might figure higher in others' lists, I wouldn't be suprised were Draycott put higher, and if Polley wrote more I'd put him higher. I didn't find Oswald an easy read but she deserves marks for ambition and might to non-UK eyes be way above the others. Elsewhere, lack of ambition and experiment abounds. As the publicity blurb says, these are "poems that remind us why memory is such an important human faculty". Too true.