NEW YORK - DECEMBER 6: Poet Johnathan McClain at the Bowery Poetry Club. Credit: Spencer Platt / Getty

This time last year, I was drowning happily in poetry while the Beast from the East raged outside. My floor was covered in stacks of contemporary collections by a thrillingly varied cohort of writers. I was chair of judges for the Forward Prizes, one of the country’s most prestigious poetry prizes, and I was preparing for the longlist meeting. The panel – including poets Mimi Khalvati, Niall Campbell, ChrisMcCabe and Jen Campbell – was in a quandary. How to single out one winner in each category, from this wide selection of excellent writing? Poetry was clearly having a moment.
It still is. Recent figures from Nielsen BookScan revealed that poetry sales grew last year by 12%, and that they had also grown in 2017. In fact, over the past six years or so, poetry has been enjoying a massive reputational transformation and artistic flowering.
The seeds of this renaissance were planted in the 1990s and 2000s, when established poets such as Andrew Motion and (especially) Carol Ann Duffy and Jackie Kay become popular champions of the form, using their position as respected public figures and much-garlanded writers to make an argument for its richness, relevance and accessibility. This isn’t to say they dumbed it down. Quite the opposite: their literary activism continually reminded people that poetry is and always has been readable, pleasurable and relevant.
Our dark and troubled times have fertilised poetic activism – and given a new urgency to a new audience’s search for voices and words which give respect to every type of experience. Issues of races, class, gender, sexuality, inequality; acknowledgement of the pain and anxiety of oppression; expressions of terror for a dying world; the brave mining of personal experience: poetry is connecting with a young audience both comfortable with and hungry for previously unheard voices.
Interestingly, two thirds of poetry purchases over the past year were made by Millennials – of whom the majority were women. So, the poetry boom is gendered (although book sales of creative writing in all forms have always been dominated by women readers) and demographically weighted too. This has brought fresh interest and energy to the industry, revitalised poetry as an art form and finally given respect to those voices which are usually erased or ignored.
It has also diversified what is being commissioned, reviewed and written. There is a great impulse among this young audience to look beyond the traditional – read male, Western, historical – canons of literature. In poetry now, the boldest voices are those of women, queer writers (such as the award-winning Danez Smith and Jay Bernard) and non-white writers of all kinds. It’s there in Jacqueline Saphra’s new collection, Dad, Remember You Are Dead – a stunningly accomplished and frank reckoning with a terrifying, sleazy patriarchal figure. Meanwhile, Karen McCarthy Woolf’s collection, Seasonal Disturbances, takes on climate change and migration with delicacy and poignancy.
Poetry has long needed this renaissance. It was once a chore, redolent of dust-covered lace doilies, post-war sobriety, wireless sets and births, marriages and funerals. I always wrote poetry, up until I was 13 or 14, then the dirge-like process of writing GCSE level essays analysing it squashed the joy out. The muse wasn’t awakened again until I saw Alice Oswald perform live in March 2015, reciting from memory. I bought her collection, Memorial, took up my own pen again and never looked back. I now write my prose fiction by expanding and piecing together my poetry like a mosaic.
Poetry’s long heritage allows it to be simultaneously cutting-edge and classic, drawing on past and present. It’s part of a global tradition: every culture has its own poetic history, or a ‘verse history’ through songs. Sappho’s beautiful words, for example, were set to haunting music and written to be sung, while songwriters like PJ Harvey have also published as poets. Even the most gifted rappers craft lines as delicately as any poet, and deliver them with great theatricality and skill. It’s also incredibly porous of other art forms like theatre, dance, rap and political provocation. My own first film as a director, An Impossible Poison, was an adaptation of a poem of mine, demonstrating how narrative and performance, words and visuals can blend together.
Historical poetry purists might balk at avant-garde cross-disciplinary work, or at the idea of poets uploading shots of their printed work onto Instagram, or putting a short performance video on YouTube. But this genre-agnostic, discipline-hopping approach is natural for the young. Poets have always performed their work in live settings but for so many readers, classrooms imprisoned words on pages; students were turned off poetry by the memory of boring lessons. Something has shifted, though, and poetry has been liberated by the internet.
Ultimately, live events and book sales have seen a rise in attendance and purchases because of what poets put online. The digital aspects of poets’ work are a shopfront, an introduction, a playpen, an experimental space, not some kind of threat to the poetry gods.
I love the punkish, DIY, multi-disciplinary creativity of contemporary poets. However, finding an audience online or being part of a cool, small-scale performance poetry night doesn’t guarantee wider recognition or a long term career. Poetry needs and deserves institutional support and investment in order to survivel. So why aren’t there more opportunities for poets to build their careers and be supported in creating a body of work, with book advances, appearance fees, paid residencies and commissions? Perhaps this will change as poetry’s allure grows.
Poetry gets to the heart of things quickly and effectively, with a unique mixture of emotional immediacy and technical sophistication. We are living in news, commentary and media-saturated times, with a constant cycle of reportage, reaction and political speculation. The digital revolution has enabled new poets to find a platform. But it has also led to both a fracturing of our attention span and an overwhelming proliferation content.
Poetry’s brevity, purity and clarity cuts through all of that. It can address the most pressing issues; in Claudia Rankine’s famous recnt collection Citizen, she looks at race and racism in America through a palimpsest-like construction, which includes prose and testimony as well as traditional formal poetry.
It can also mine the deepest emotions. And yet (for me at least), reading it is an act of solitary contemplation. You can’t rush reading poetry and you can’t deny its candour and wisdom, even when the outer world gives us lots of reasons to panic.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePeter are you having a joke?
Bring back Teresa May – perhaps in charge of Brexit negotiations?
Well that article went down the toilet half way through didn’t it!
Why not say what you really mean and ask for Blair?
Hint – you won’t get him!
It did, didn’t it!
Austerity means “living within your means”. If you live beyond your means, you have to borrow money, or in this case, print it.
If you borrow money you have to repay it sometime. In government terms that means your children will have to pay it – and possibly your grandchildren. How generous to leave them a debt!
If you print money you are putting more money out there in excess of the supply of goods. That means the goods will cost more. That means inflation. That means we all have to pay more in order to match the money printing (“quantitative easing”, “helicopter money”, call it what you will.)
Wise men practise austerity. Fools print money.
Fools print money to address structural issues. In an emergency, “fools say fools print money”.
I would be prepared to bet several hundred pounds that a majority of people in the UK do not understand that the government is required to pay interest on the national debt.
UK Gvt needs to fund the Demand side and make big proper meaningful infrastructure investments and reduce taxes so as to fund massive GROWTH, which will in turn generate increased tax revues to pay down debt. Interest rates should go up to circa 3% to make a real cost of capital and to support the currency given all the printing.
“Government needs to be ready to own (and manage) more of the economy than it has done for decades.” No kidding Sherlock! There is a reason the government do not own and manage more of the economy – they are absolutely useless at it!!
Civil Servants do not know how to manage factories, Civil Servants do not know how to run railways and Civil Servants don’t know how to buy next years fashions.
The government should supply selective support to help business back to normal but they must not take major shareholdings and control. The private sector must get it’s own house in order and those business that can’t survive must go to the wall. People talk about the “new normal” after lock down, well government can’t try and stop that for the sake of socialist dogma. Business will go under, people will become unemployed, then new business will emerge and new employment will be created. We cannot stop evolution, lets not spend billions trying!
Civil servants know very little about anything. Except perhaps why Persephone must return to Hades for half of each year.
The private sector certainly don’t know how to run railways, so we’re in a right pickle on that one!
National Rail is a public body and they make running a RoC impossible!
This is Project Fear Version 3. The author does not know how exactly the economy will go in another 6 or 8 weeks time as more & more scientific advice starts showing the opposite of Ferguson’s blunder.
Is the deal with unherd that you can’t say the article is rubbish?
On the economic part of Peter’s piece, I think it really is time for him and everybody who comments on his arguments to mug up a bit more on modern monetary theory: Wray, Modern Money Theory; Mitchell and Fazi, Reclaiming the State, or Stephanie Kelton’s forthcoming (June) The Deficit Myth. It’s not credible to call for no more austerity without explaining what was wrong with the justifications for austerity given by previous Tory (and Labour) governments. It makes it even less credible if you repeat some of those same errors yourself, as if they were self-evident (danger of Sterling collapse, hyperinflation, need to pay off ‘national debt’ etc.). It is true that all these standard objections are in the basic, and even some of the not-so-basic, economics textbooks; but Wray, Mitchell and Kelton have shown comprehensively how we have been miseducated by these textbooks. The unthinking majority of economists are stuck in a time warp and have failed to adjust to how macroeconomies are actually managed in countries like the US and UK today.
On the political leadership, the A-Team we need are people who understand all this and are prepared to lead a paradigm shift. I am not at all persuaded that the pre-Boris Tory old guard are likely candidates in this regard.
Thanks for nothing David. Fat lot of good telling everyone to understand something then fail to offer even an outline, in quite a lengthy post, of what you’re on about.
Perhaps something as simple as “shake the magic money tree” might have, at least, given us a clue.
Great comment, lots of people commenting here seem to be basing their views on seriously outdated economic theory that has proved harmful to people and planet. We need to do things differently and remind ourselves what and who the economy is for.
As Roger Bootle has pointed out, modern monetary policy isn’t modern, it isn’t really monetary and it isn’t a theory.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk…
“Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.”
In other words a mouthpiece for leftie orthodoxy. I knew what the article would say before I read it. I read it anyway in the hope I was wrong but wasn’t.
Of course, the A-team would, for their part, have to toe the government line on Brexit. They’d also have to put aside any ideological hang-ups about government intervention
…and there is the problem. Latterly, ideology trumps reason and rationality, need and necessity, truth and reality.
Peter, you have clearly been drinking the LibDem Blairite masquerading as ‘Conservatives’ Kool-Aid…. !
May, Cameron, Gauke, Clarke…. have you lost the plot! NO WAY! May as well make Olly Robins PM…. and give the EU the whole of the UK…
One Problem with Bojo’s Cabinet, is too many ‘Remainers’. Voting ‘Remain’ was about a ‘Mind Set’ and a LACK of ‘UK plc & Self’ Confidence to thrive as an Independent Sovereign Nation, NOT just about ‘Brexit’.
Another Problem with Bojo Cabinet is that he did not include more experienced and strong and business minded proper “Conservatives” like John Redwood and Steve Baker.
Fine for Penny Maudant, BUT what the Cabinet needs immediately is Steve Baker, John Redwood and more MPs of same calibre and skill set.
This a very long winded article that could be replaced with “we should have stuck with the original plan” which also happened to be the stated policy of all 4 UK country governments, the NHS and it’s scientific advisors for 9 years. The NHS pandemic infuenza plan, written in 2011 says ‘we will not be able to contain a new virus’. What it should have said was ‘we will not be able to contain a new virus without totally f*****g up the country and people’s lives for years and years to come’. That plan expected babies, children and mothers to die in equal measure, nothing like the incredibly kind Coronavirus that blows through healthy under 45s like a Tsunami of warm air.
Had I seen this four weeks ago, or even three weeks ago, I would be thinking time to go for it. Too late now. Far, far too late. It’s going to be a hungry winter.
And you were doing so well, Peter. Bring back Theresa May? I usually try to respond to articles with something considered and polite but, in this instance, I can only say, are you mad?!!!
First, Penny Mordaunt is not on the backbenches, she is Paymaster General. Greg Clark was a complete nonentity at BEIS. Saj is bright but totally lacking in charisma – we’re much better off with Rishi. Cameron is quite an attractive personality but does he have any particular skills? I’m not sure chillaxing is in great demand at the moment. And Gauke spent several years at the Treasury seemingly enjoying putting Britain’s small businesses out of business by championing IR35. He was totally captured by HMRC and is the last person we need anywhere near our economy right now … or indeed, ever.
Bring back the Maybot, the Broone and Bliar????????? I think not. Although I would agree that the front bench needs beefing up with the likes of Maudant.
it took you a long time to try to make your point can you honestly say that are you objective with no political bias
I think we must do better than bringing back Cameron, May, Gauke and Clarke.
Another thought….:
Given how successful and efficient the Army were at building the Nightingale Hospitals…., and that Healthcare is clearly now part of National Defense for Bio-Warfare…
Maybe the NHS should report into and be run by the Army….
and ex Forces people should run and staff the a new Border Force.
ex Forces people should also fill the Civil Service ranks
I have a new financial idea that will help fix this
Email The1beard@hotmail.com
If you are interested
David Cameron (bad) and Theresa May (worse) were awful Prime Ministers. David Gauke was a dreadful minister. None of this lot should be let anywhere near the corridors of power ever again. You may as well go on to suggest that they ask in John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn. Some others, like John Redwood and Peter Lilley would be well worth asking back.
Your point on vulture capitalists buying up distressed assets is well made. We should not allow either China or Germany (who bought a lot of Greek assets during their crisis) do this.
Is this a teaser for running a ‘Fantasy Cabinet’ competition? Or perhaps it is a camouflaged version of ‘hate Brexit, hate Boris’?
Otherwise bringing back politicians who resigned or were sacked would undermine the authority of the present incumbents, especially the PM. The last thing we need during a crisis.