Post
by Gary Harding » Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:41 am
Yes Heather. Poems about non-bush subjects (however one may perceive them) as you say might be seen as being caught in no-man's-land. Neither Free Verse nor Bush Ballads... perhaps. However they are extremely good poems, and so where is the literary justice if they are excluded?
I mean.. were Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson Bush Poets? Yes... but only when when they wrote "Bush"? Otherwise they were ... something else.
"What's the use of writing bush though editors demand it..." Henry Lawson. Henry seems to see a division between bush and non-bush. Very confusing.
And what about poor old C.J. Dennis..? and The Bloke. Did writing in the venacular, the langwidge of Little Lons in Melbourne, make him a "bush" poet... ? or was he only that when he wrote "Jim Of The Hills"? If he entered "The Play" in a comp today, would he be told "sorry Den, not good enough..." ?
My own response now is to interpret Bush Poetry as not being ABOUT the bush necessarily... but that the term is merely a broad title for Traditional Australian Ballad = Bush Ballad
A "Traditional Australian Poet", while not coming off the tongue so easily and perhaps not having the wide recognition that "Bush Poet" has, is a better description and all encompassing.
Just to add confusion, if one does a google search on ballad there are several definitions and one sensible comment says that these days it has so many structured forms that you simply cannot afford it the luxury of a strict definition. Don't we all love the comfort of a strict label for compartmentalisation?
Personally I am not totally sold on the term Bush Poet as it implies the very restriction on subjects that you outline. For convenience and simplicity, one uses and accepts the term I guess.
So I interpret "Bush" as being not so much a restriction on subject matter but as a restriction on Style of writing.
In the past I have shared your uncertainty about entering poems in Bush Poetry Competitions that do not specifically address "the bush", however one may perceive that. Indeed I have altered a line or two and replaced old tree with gum tree in order to bring it more into the fold. A travesty for any purist. These days I do not do it! Incidentally I can quote some recent Bush Poetry Comps that have awarded first prize to poems on very non-bush subjects.
Glenny Palmer may have some comments as to whether she, and perhaps other judges too, see the term "Bush Poetry" as being a restriction on subject (which many may resent in principle and say I will write on any subject that I choose!) or as merely a restriction on style requiring a rigorous and disciplined ballad technique with structure, rhyme and meter.
That also highlights a point I made recently that some Comps allude to Paterson and Lawson as examples of what they want, and as you say Heather, those poets certainly did not restrict themselves to bush subjects.
Thus it follows I believe, that the subject restriction of being "bush" necessarily, is now generally non-existent in Bush Poetry competitions at least. Get that style tight and then.. just go for it.... !
Finally... as a "bush poet" one needs to have an answer if someone says "So you reckon you are a bush poet,eh? well what do you mean Bush?? " Perhaps not the correct answer, as I suspect there simply isn't one. Just an instant and plausible explanation. To not have an answer or try and flum one, is to potentially look foolish.
Maybe better to label oneself a Traditional Australian Poet in the vein of Banjo Paterson, rather than a Bush Poet...? less complicated.