The Spectator's 40 Poems You Should Know

johnAnt

Printing the 40 poems in the print-only edition is sensibly profit-conscious.
But not giving even just the titles in the internet version (so readers can read, reference or google the texts elsewhere themselves) looks mean-minded, unimaginative and ultimately self-defeating. Few of those who are interested in poetry (and who will already have a poetry library) are going to buy the Speccie's print edition (which is unobtainable round here anyway) to see what your choice is. And those who are uninterested in poetry will continue to be so.
Which century are we in?

Jeremy

Wow. A genuinely worthwhile reason to buy the magazine this week. "...Forty Poems You Should Know." It will, indeed, be interesting to see who "made the cut".

Two of my current favourites are from Ted Hughes' collection "Crow". They are "Crow Communes" and "In Laughter" - the second because it is very blackly comic, and I think that black comedy is one of the hardest things of all to do well. And, to be honest, I had not come across it before, in poetry, until I read Ted Hughes. I think that he was a very fine (and also a highly idiosyncratic) poet. I have also discovered, for myself, that he is much loved by his readers. One young lady even started a conversation with me at the cafe based solely upon the fact that I was reading "Ted". I thought that was very touching. Poetry, it seems, can do this (now I'm beginning to sound like a Heineken advert).

Unfortunately, I have no understanding of the techniques of the form (!) although I have recently learnt what an Iambic Pentameter is. Or I think I have...

seb

It's possible to pick forty out of the tens of thousands that have been written in English? Go on.

What about many of the very greatest examples of English verse: long blank verse passages from Shakespearean plays? Are any of these included in this list?

logdon

johnAnt
August 5th, 2009 7:38pm

I agree.

Reading the link headline, 'The Spectator's 40 Poems You Should Know', leads one to the article and the least expected is a list of that forty.

Whether to learn and inform or critisise as lamentable, it would have at least offered a chink of useable information as a base.

This has the whiff of pure sales promotion, give them a sniff and they'll be crying out for more, then buy the print edition.

Maybe if we knew what was on offer we'd dig into pockets. As it stands this is just not doing it.

We all have our favourite poets, just the name evokes the style, aura and era they personify. In other words those names trigger emotions and a desire for the greater and more fulfilling emotion we gain from reading their verse.

Leaving these names dangling in the wind results in the same condition in us.

Come on. Publish and be damned.

Dog Snob

By coincidence I have recently subscribed to the magazine. Looking forward to the next edition even more now.

Verity

Why the hell would anyone care what someone at The Spectator thinks are poems you should know? What a bossy article.

JohnAnt

Mind you, logdon, anyone could copy out the list of poems (citing the list itself would not be a breach of copyright, if the compiler's name and the magazine are fairly attributed) and put it on a blog.
What a shame the Speccie can't be the one to do it.
As Ted Hughes so memorably said, or at least might have, I can't be b*gger*d meself.
And Jeremy - you must be the only man in the country who's pulled a bird by reading 'Crow'. Reminds me of the early Woody Allen where he chats up a girl in front of a painting in a modern art gallery.
She: 'It reminds me of the sheer, black meaningless void of life and the hopelessness of all human effort'
Woody: 'Uh-huh. So what are you doing tonight?'

London Calling

Logdon...I agree

Leaving these names
dangling in the wind
Hanging from a washing line
One can only read in print

Alas we sighed 40 poems swayed
If you want to read them
subscribe today...

;0

Derek

Some years ago now, I remember, The Spectator adopted a policy of printing no poem unless it rhymed and some poor chap was appointed to enforce this diktat. Blank verse may therefore be given short shrift,seb.

The magazine appears to have entered a phase of listomania with, what was it now?, 50 essential films, 50 juiciest scandals and now 40 required poems. What next, the 30 most desirable holiday destinations, the 20 most overrated lists?

cherry drive

When was the last time poetry had the whiff of a sales promotion? Anyone in their right mind who wants to promote something doesn't think poetry... they think "images"-- of which there are none in poetry (unless there's some sexed-up pictures to help readers understand what the poem is saying...).

JohnAnt

An arbiter? Huh!
The Spectator was always
Cr*p at poetry.

And, Olivia,
Let's get this patently clear:
Sylvia Plath is cr*p.
http://clamorousvoice.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/ruth-padel-who-is-olivia-cole/

Stalin MacBugger

The life that I have
Is all that I have
And the life that I have
Is yours

The love that I have
Of the life that I have
Is yours and yours and yours.

A sleep I shall have
A rest I shall have
Yet death will be but a pause
For the peace of my years
In the long green grass
Will be yours and yours and yours.

Sue

The Telegraph put their list of the Top 50 or 100 books/albums/movies of all time on the online edition, then when you read them, you wish you had not, because you realize that all it is is a smug exercise in publishing obscure lists which only promote the peculiar tastes of the persons who compiled them. Then you get all the nutty posts saying "This list of albums is crap. You didn't even include The Wombles' Wombling Christmas Wassail Songs album. How can you produce a list of the top albums of all time and not include this? It's a classic."

I think you have done the right thing to keep this to the printed word. But why 40?

Old Hack

Truly a historic moment for the Coffee House:
Verity makes a pro-Philisitine comment.

William Coales

I think it's fun to debate one's top 40 list of poems BUT... When the Spectator starts to tell me what I 'should' or shouldn't do it's time to consider cancelling my subscription.

Derbyshire Ben

Remember people this is the forum based around the Spectator Magazine. Some of us pay money for a subscription. It's a business not a charity and the advertorial content on the forums is far less intrusive than on other print related fora.

bill

Am I the only who is tiring of the seemingly endless lists which appear in newspapers and their internet outlets?

And FYI Old Hack, it's "Philistine" not "Philisitine".

CS

***I look forward to reading about the delusional picks on Coffee House.***

There's no need to be offensive, Olivia. Those of us who post on Coffee House are entitled to our opinions.

Oh, "picks". My mistake.

CS

Leaving aside the mild hilarity of Verity accusing someone else of being bossy, I've no sympathy for those complaining about the outrage that they'd have to fork out for a copy of the magazine.

So, when someone's employed in the public sector, they're a leech expecting a free lunch. When someone on Coffee House is demanding something free online, they're brave opponents of marketing spin.

bill

CS

I am very grateful for the fact that the Speccie website is free. I would be mildly interested to know which poems are to be rated; but I am not a great poetry fan other than for occasional special times. So I won't be rushing out to buy a copy of the magazine. I used to pay for it but went off it surprisingly under Boris's editorship. How much is it now?

CS

Bill, an outrageous £2.95. I must say that I have the opposite reaction to yours. Since the departure of Boris, I think The Speccie has become sadly po-faced and gloomy. Fewer sparks and ideas. Even if they weren't necessariy sane ideas. Mind you, you'd have thought that all the barely concealed advertising in the mag ("Why I Adore Cristal champagne/Romeo y Julieta cigars/skiing in Austria" by a random Z-list celeb) they'd be able to afford to at least put the list of poem titles online.

Derek

bill, it's 2.95 a shot. Support the Barclay Bros. in their hour of need.

Verity

CS - Yes, very droll. Your post above was funny, though.

I, too, went right off the Speccie - having been a customer for years - under Boris Johnson's dire editorship. Not only were his own pieces plodding and sloppy - especially when compared with the lightness and skill of his immediate predecessor - but he employed his sister, who is an even worse writer than he is, and bought a piece from Ron Liddle's then-girlfriend who seemed to be a functional illiterate. For this, we were paying. I quit and never went back. It was such a hotbed of illicit assignations that Mark Steyn, who hadn't yet been tied into a sled and sent out into the snow, noted that he went into the offices one day and no one offered to have sex with him.

I didn't bother to read the blurb.

Those lists of things "you should" are 20 years out of date.

JohnAnt

Like Bill, I had a subscription, a long-term one, which I stopped a couple of years ago when the mag began its flirtation with chick-lit features and Look-At-Me-I-Have-A-Book-Just-Out-And-Know-Lots-Of-Famous-People.
Having read some of Ms Cole's poetry, I don't really want to know what poetry classics she favours. It'd just put me off them.
Sorry, as Dame Edna would say, but it would.

JohnAnt

Bill - You can get an annual sub for £1 per week (see top banner on the webpage) if you can trust the distributor and the postman to deliver it on time. Mine always came late, sometimes not at all.
Better to read the bits you like online, on time, I find, and ignore the rest.

Derek

I have to say I still take it with pleasure - the magazine. Where's Paul Johnson been recently though?

CS

I was only teasing, Verity.

I must say that this list of 40 bets poems is clearly an attempt to humiliate me personally. Having just forked out for the mag a sum which dwarfs the national debt counter above, I find that, of the 14 printed this week, I've heard of none of them.

CS

On reflection, however, maybe a list of 40 best poems (none of which you turn out to have heard of) is more interesting than a list of the blindingly obvious ones (I wandered lonely as a...). A chance of being introduced to something new rather than a regurgitation of accepted norms.

I may even come to think so highly of Olivia that I forgive her for nearly calling me a "delusional prick".

biggestaspidistra

I pray there is nothing Motionless.

JohnAnt

CS - as you are the one here with the print copy, can you cite a few titles in the list? If you've heard of none of them at all, it sounds as if the selection must be a tad recondite.

JohnAnt

Derek, I like Paul Johnson too. But he is 80, so it's understandable that he's stopped contributing. Strange not to have some prominently public editorial acknowledgment of the fact though. Johnson is something of a legend, after all.

David Parham

but of course the Australian vrsion doesnt contain this ... why

Derek

JohnAnt. I wasn't aware that Paul Johnson had stopped contributing indefinitely. I had assumed he was off on a painting holiday in France or some such. I would be most upset if he weren't to resume his column shortly. I think the editor would certainly have made an announcement if he had left the magazine, but I am as surpsied as you that no explanation has been given as to where he is - even if only a little line in italics at the foot of the page on which his column usually appears saying something along the lines of "Paul Johnson is feeling like writing a book".

Derek

One list from the Spectator which I would welcome would be "The First 100 Laws that the Next Government Should Abolish Upon Taking Office".

Verity

Derek - Every single piece of legislation they have put on the books is malign and controlling, or destructive. So why be picky? Just erase them all with one stroke of the pen. Every single piece of legislation put on the books since Blair took office, obliterated. It would save time and blood pressure.

JohnAnt

Verity - the last 'Spectator' article I can locate is 25th March 2009. And the rest is silence, on these pages. But i was wrong to assume he's packed it in - au contraire:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Johnson-writer/47318076121

So can d'Ancona give us some explanation of why Johnson was airbrushed out of the magazine in the spring of 2009 without any commentary?

JohnAnt

...and I bet that, even at 80, Johnson could write a book with each hand simultaneously, and still produce a weekly Spectator article!

egh

Poetry, is it? Well before I run around finding a copy to spend money on, I'd like to know what they're defining as poetry. Now if they really mean rock 'n roll, - we all know the original meaning of that isn't a synonym for poetry - don't we? So if they really mean rock 'n roll, which they think 'sells,' then I'll consider my money well saved.

Cherry "they think "images"-- of which there are none in poetry" ... Huh? Are you perhaps Verity - in her philistine guise?

Anwar Ahmed

..Poetry is excellent expression in brief.....it is experiencing in ages.....useful as well....best wish to go ahead..

Ben

Why Johnson left? Google knows. It's not hard. But awfully sad.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/stephen-glover/stephen-glover-so-farewell-then-paul-johnson-struck-down-in-his-prime-1667811.html