SIR,—In his interesting review 'Poets of the Fifties,' Mr. Anthony
Hartley makes some generalisations about the poetry of the war years which 1 do not think can possibly hold water. He says: 'we all suffered considerably under the New Apocalypse. It seemed then and it seems now that a great deal of intoler- ably pretentious verse was being written at that time,' etc. etc. It is of course true that during the Forties, as during every other decade I can remember, bad verse was being produced in quantity; but to say that the poetry of the so-called New Apocalypse was dominant is totally contrary to the facts. The outstanding poetry of the war years was, in my recollection, very different, Apart from those poets who had made their names at an earlier date, and who were in many cases— from T. S. Eliot to David Gascoyne- producing some of their best work, the poets who made their mark on the decade were, first, the group associated with Personal Land- Acape in Cairo, which included Lawrence Durrell and Terence Tiller; second, the poets on active service such as Keith Douglas, Alun Lewis and - Roy-Puller; _ and, third, a few highly individual talents such as Henry Reed, Laurie Lee and Norman Nicholson. None of these poets was connected with the Sturm and Drang of the New Apocalypse or can be found guilty of the sweeping accusations Mr. Hartley makes. I write this, not because I disagree with the general tenor of Mr. Hart- ley's views on the poetry of our century, but because his generalisations about the Forties- ! have seen them elsewhere—seem likely to assist in the creation of a baseless myth among those who have not had the opportunity, or the inclination seriously to examine the poetry that was being written at that time.—Yours faithfully,
JOHN LEHMANN
31 Egerton Crescent, London, SW 3
Previous page
