I know it's the centenary of
W.S. Graham's birth and that there are quite a few celebratory pieces and a
book or so being published about him this year and most of them stress his 'outsider'
status because his work seemed to suffer under the proliferation of Movement
poets. I've recently been re-reading his 'New Collected Poems,' an article by
Ross Wilson in 'The Honest Ulsterman,' but have yet to read 'The Caught Habits
of Language.' From the reviews, it's obvi
ous that
Graham has been placed in the-needs-to-be-revived category, almost as though
his work had been declared clinically dead.
Was it, though? Was he really such an outsider, or without influence? An
outsider in the sense that he didn't join particular schools, yes, as if that
matters when the work can stand up for itself, but I question that he's
influenced no poet. Nor was he outside being influenced himself: his earlier
poetry strongly suggests Modernist tendencies. Of poets of my generation who I
know are familiar with his work, more than a few think (and thought) highly of
his poetry. He was and is better known among poets than the reading public, but
that may be put down to publicity and hype. In the end, the only movement he
seems to have been outside was the Movement.
I had come across his work in my twenties and was interested enough to seek
out his earlier books and pamphlets, but was blown away by 'Malcolm Mooney's
Land' published towards the end of that decade in 1970 with its emphasis on
language, its uses and inadequacies. That was over two decades before Geoffrey
Hill's breakout with 'Canaan' in 1998. I've often wondered about the similarity
of theme, though I've as yet done no definitive analysis. I can't think that a
poet of Hill's calibre was unaware of Graham's work. Hill's work on language
was more declamatory and fiercely ironic in his later books whereas Graham's
could veer between the declamatory and the lyrical with great ease and effect;
savage irony used against British institutions Graham rarely used, though he
returns just as often to his Scottish working class roots as Hill did to his
Worcestershire and sometimes Mercian ones. Too, his work, to my knowledge, was
always well regarded in Scotland, though some criticised his seeming desertion
of the motherland and lack of engagement in Scottish politics.
Much more research needs to be done in this regard, but there's enough to
make me question what are in danger of becoming a couple of too easy truisms in
this centenary year. Ho, hum! Hype attempts to win out again?
