Tim Jones has interviewed David Howard
here. In the course of the interview David states, in the context of a scathing indictment of
globalisation, that "Following New
Zealand's political reorientation, our poetry has turned from British to American (rather than indigenous) models. This is change but not the liberation that many claim."*
What? Aside from the criticisms of Bill
Manhire (which seem to have
more to do with the
IIML, and by
extension VUP and
Sport - for which the criticisms should probably be leveled at Fergus
Barrowman - than his poetics) there is little or no actual discussion of what this means. Sure, anyone can see the
Ashbery influence in
Manhire's work (though to be honest I haven't really read much post 1990 - his work seemed to go downhill around then), but what does that
mean?
Strangely David praises Michele
Leggot's DIA, saying that it "deservedly won the New Zealand Book Award for Poetry" in 1994. Michele took her Doctorate in Canada, on the work of American poet
Louis Zukofsky. Her first work was published in Canada, and she is heavily influenced by US (and Canadian) language writing, and has been instrumental in bringing US poets to NZ to expose students to a larger range of practices (two talks given at the University of Auckland by Lyn
Hejinian are available
here and
here).
As I've already
stated the criticism of US influence in NZ is nothing new (and Allen
Curnow's beloved Eliot and Auden were
Americans, much as Eliot would have liked it to be otherwise), and besides, what, really is the alternative? Politics of regional genesis seem trite and petty. Just compare Auden to, say, Bruce Andrews, and you will see there are a multitude of different "America"'s, and such a matrix of practices extends beyond the US borders into Canada, the UK ... and has it's genesis in Fin
de Siècle Europe.
As such, and in light of the fact that any pretence at autonomy (or regional "authenticity" - though Patrick Evans may disagree) is willful blindness - simply the importation of the idea of poetry (and with it the Greek
Poesias) renders the attempt futile), what is the alternative to such? The fact that we now have global, instantaneous communication means that any attempt top cordon off the cultural precinct of our corner of the word (while
subsequently trumpeting the "world class" qualities of our arts) is regressive in the extreme. I for one would rather join the world than engage in the
CNZ brand of platitudinous marketing of "NZ identity".
*Obviously I'm writing this as a
Pakeha writer. I would feel very uncomfortable
appropriating "
indigenous models" for my work, without the kind of full cultural engagement that I do not feel is possible; and even so I feel that such could easily turn into a kind of cultural tourism - cultural practices as commodities for consumption. The same kind of surface use of Maori idiom that one sees used by people who don't speak fluent Maori - meaning that the use of the word does not have the kind of full
semantic underpinning and nuanced understanding of connotation as well as
denotation that would be utilised if the word was
English.