Poetry Magazines - The best collection of poetry magazines online - Simon Armitage

Stanley Pelter’s letter (BS 11/3 p63) suggests we still share common thoughts. However, short on time and space, perhaps - as I am now - some of his argument loses me; also, he seems to misread - certainly misquote - my words. Nowhere in ‘Letter from Winford’ do I advocate a humanus uber machina stance - nor could I. Short of yet inconceivable breakthroughs in science, only machines are ever likely to penetrate the orbiting gunge of our planet en route for the stars. Perhaps, like some salmonella of the universe, a bit of human genome will tag along for replication - though why bother? (Much I care sometimes). This evolutionary metaphor posits us as children; and relating it to the great haiku-fingerprint debate (HFD), I immediately think of calculator-handed kids who can’t mentally multiply 6x7 (or see the purpose of doing so) - or the master-carpenter who needs his plane to create flatness, but could do well enough without a straight edge.

Nor, with more direct reference to HFD, do I advocate any human ‘dominance over machines. Wrong word! Simply, I see the application of the human mind (with all its indecisions) as still being more ‘appropriate’ in matters of aesthetic judgement. In our present scenario, what comes out of the computer will be but a poor representative of human thought - yet more open to innocent, ill-judged or deliberate misuse. I note Stanley’s awareness of need for vigilance, but feel he’s wrong in suggesting, here, that the computer will be at least ‘neutral’ - at best, more ‘objective’ than ourselves. I suggest that it will, at best, be less gestalt-objective than ourselves; at worst, prejudicial. A DNA-fingerprint results from transposing one objective code into another; it does not anywhere exist as some linguistic conception. A computer can only discriminate haiku from non-haiku if you tell it what you think haiku is; and this can only be done using poorly defined words. Juggling such words inside a computer will give them no greater objectivity; and I suggest that the human mind is (as yet) far better at dealing with the fuzzy nature of words (to any significant purpose), than any bag of chips. And do you seriously believe that the ‘computer’ will help us make a better assessment of the avant-garde?

Nowhere in my letter did I beseech anyone to ‘fight hard against’ anything; only to think hard about two specific issues. As for ‘beseech’ signifying even mild hysteria on my part, let me explain. Bored out of my tiny mind, I take any opportunity - even ‘serious’ criticism - to attempt ‘creative writing’. ‘I beseech you in the bowels of haiku’ was a parody: intended to show strength of feeling, but also to lighten the tone (in the context of discussion, it sounds slightly ludicrous). In ‘The Ascent of Man’, Jacob Bronowski (speaking of the dangers of ideologies and the misuse of science) ruins a perfectly good pair of shoes to scoop up the black sludge of human ash from an Auschwitz pool. He quotes Cromwell: ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken’. ‘Ludicrous’? Maybe, but ideologies are machines too - and what they become depends entirely on who or what you indoctrinate/program them with.

Stanley seems to have completely missed the point of my anecdote about the ‘glorified technician’. But let it pass. In short in such matters I try only to exhort people to think; being in no position myself to tell anyone what constitutes haiku, tanka, haibun etc. Interesting academic exercise? Perhaps. Useful? ...