the cutting edge?

Does it have to be cutting edge in terms of subject matter or in terms of how it's written - and are we talking prose, poetry or drama? Not that I have any clue at all as to who or what is cutting edge right now - but that's probably such a non-cutting edge term to use ...

I was talking literature generally - but take say poetry, as that is more concerned with format and style than prose, which might successfully only be concerned with message content. The poem Ralph put forward may well be a new developement for him personally, though I did not find anything there which challenged me to think or write, differently.

I find the whole subject pointless. Cutting edge is a contextual notion....if I haven't seen it before, it might look like cutting edge to me and yet in fact be as old a Methusela's socks. Or it might be new in the sense of not having been tried in 150 years so everyone has forgotten about it. Or maybe it is commonplace in some other culture and just introduced here for the first time... In short, all art is a rehash of what's gone before. ...Thus, why bother evaluating on the basis of "cutting edge" when the real question should be: is it any good or not? does it do something for or to me? I remember having a discussion with a Harvard undergrad back in about 1992. He had been listening to the latest techno music on his walkman and paused to explain to me how this was all totally new and never done before and completely cutting edge. I said: Ok, let me take a listen. I listened for about 10 seconds and handed the walkman back to him, saying: Well, this is all highly derivative, mostly coming from Pink Floyd and Kraftwerk, just speeded up by 2X or 3X. In fact you could almost go back to some of the Big Band Swing Era music and see influences there. He gave me THAT LOOK, shook his head and walked away. A few days later, he came back to me somewhat sheepishly (we were working in the same office at the time) with a music magazine article which confirmed everything I had said...except the Swing Era part...that was a bit of a reach anyway. Maybe this says more about Harvard undergrads than about music, and I am certainly not setting myself up as an expert leitmotiv chaser, but most of this stuff is really obvious....if I can figure it out, it must be blindingly obvious. On the other hand, just to play along for a moment....an example of cutting edge in terms of crime fiction would be James Ellroy's The Cool Six Thousand. Not the plot, the style, and I think he's taken that short-sentence bit about as far as it can go, almost to the point of being unintelligible. And that's the basic problem I have with cutting edge in the modern context: the term is often used to justify unintelligible krap that no one would read unless it were described as cutting edge. It's a bit like the chic restaurant that charges £40 for a beans and toast breakfast. And of course rambling unintelligible posts like this one are front and center on the cutting edge, eh? I can prove it: Look! There's the blood!

I think I agree with every word of justyn_thyme's post. Rambling posts are definitely at the forefront of the modern intellectual world. Which has reminded me - a good book to read on the subject is The Intellectuals Against the Masses by (I think) John Casey.

goose! jellyfish^ wuRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

"Mr Floyd is bravely challenging our bourgeouis preconceptions with his untitled piece. In linking the goose, the jellyfish and the image of a windy, whirry thing he is taking on many of the assumptions we make about the world in which we, as humans of the western hemisphere, must dwell." Or something.

I have to agree with Justyn because at about 14.11 today, (check his post above) I was in the pub with Pip Pip and the talented Mark Brown and I was going on about how I thought James Ellroy's writing style with his short sentences, police jargon and L.A. street argot were the most cutting edge prose I had read recently. Heavy man!

Cutting edge is simply not being lazy. It means working for people's attention, rather than slipping into the mentality of 'I'm a writer - my words are gold dust.' Avant-gardism and other attempts to find new routes in literature are frequently rejected on the grounds that they are only saying, "Look at how clever I'm being." By the same logic, every writer who does not experiment is only saying, "Look how safe I'm playing it!" There's plenty of room for laid back conventional writing, but our culture, and especially our literary elite (our established authors and publishers,) react to anything new with fear and mockery. Don't fall into the trap.

If someone reacted to my writing with fear and mockery I would probably feel elated. It's when they don't react at all, or just yawn and fall asleep, that I have to reconsider what I've written. Now, if Andrew Pack had also been at that lunch, then we'd really have a ko-inka-dink, as he is the biggest Ellroy fan I know.

Who's falling into a trap? I attend a lot of 'cutting edge' art shows. Some are 'cutting', others are not. I would beg to differ with many another art gazer on what is and what isn't 'cutting'. However, I do believe that art is probably the chief forum for driving new forms in culture - including leterature, especially at the moment. the poem Ralph posted is certainly not 'cutting edge'. some of the stuff I see at teh Venice Biennalle evryother year most certainly is. It incorporates writing, film, painting sculpture, installation and much much more. A lot of that is 'cutting edge'. It inspires, revolts, appals and stimulates. Most of it will be lost in the dimness of time but then that is why it is 'ce' in the first place. Let's not be led down any garden paths here. We love 'ce' on ABC, we also love loads of non 'ce' material. There's room for it all and not much will not change that.

I don't know who'se falling into a trap, Tony. Me, sometimes, I guess. There's room for it all, yes - but I still think there's a big gulf here between what is published and publicised - what makes it onto the front page, into the forums etc. And as far as publicity goes, there isn't as much room, not all at once. This is why I object to seeing Fish up there all the time. I think it should be rotated - and not just what we consider to be good. I'm not saying you aren't putting effort in, but I think there's still work to be done. Sorry if I've seemed hard on you and ABC, but I think a week or so ago, seeing three of Fish's pieces at once on the front, just snapped me the wrong way. As far as I can see, it doesn't matter if she's certifiably the best writer who ever lived - we have a 'front' above the massed echelons of ABC, that front receives much more attention from everyone and represents what we are to newcomers. And that front is, however unintentionally, dominated by the few. Yes, if you like, it's the 'excellent' few - it's the best. But I don't think it should be the best, not all the time, not even most of the time. I'm rambling again. I can't stop - I'm very passionate about all this - about getting my point down thoroughly while trying not to attack or grind anyone down. And the more I fail (sarcastic poems by Fish count as an abject failure,) the more I want to set it straight.

I think i MUST point out here in terms of absolute fairness Hen, that the pieces that were on the front page, were there as a DIRECT result of people being asked for their favourites on the discuss writing from abc forum... they were not editors choices, they were the choices of the people who bothered to respond......the site users that posted.

Spot on Liana!

Ok so I'm dumb, but what the hell does 'cutting edge' mean, and to whom?

I know that, Liana. But it was a favourites list masquerading as an overlooked gems list. It reinforced the reputations of writers and pieces that have mostly already had a very big readership on the site, been commented on and praised. In my opinion, that space should be used to draw attention to pieces that maybe have not had their due. I don't think it was 'wrong' or 'stupid' to put those on the front, but I do think it was a mistake. Not because Fish is a bad choice, but because she has this almost perpetual presence. Yes, in part, the front page and the last 10 must be treated as advertisement to new readers, so we can't go round selecting the worst work of the week to put there. But it seems at the moment that all we use the front page for is advertising our hot picks, when it is also a central hub, around which much discussion and reading revolves, and a means of publicising writers. In those last two areas, we repeatedly give the stage to the perceived best (I say perceived because, as you well know, I do not always agree with the choices, and we'll never all agree completely.) Casual users of the site are drawn to them by the cherries in the list and the mentions on the front, so they are read and enjoyed more, so when you ask for favourites they come up, and the whole process starts again, going round in circles, with only the occasional exceptional writers breaking in.

"THERE IS NO SEAT AT THE CUTTING EDGE OF CONTEMPRANEITY FOR THE DENIZENS OF MIDDLE AGE " Norman Lebrecht ....whoever he is.... Discuss....

Cutting Edge is another term for obscure crap that nobody can understand or wants to read.

Does that mean he has to stand?

I think there are no seats on the cutting edge anyway. you should be able to fry an egg on it.

It would make a nice change from all the crap I read and understand.

and the other thing is how can you consider yourself middle aged unless you have it in writing what day you're going to die?

Yes, but a 43-year old man told he has 6 months to live does not become "old". Young doesn't mean "definitely has loads of years left", it means "probably does". Old doesn't mean "about to cark it"; it means "reasonably likely to". And middle-aged doesn't mean "smack bang in the middle or thereabouts" it means, "as averages go, roughly half way there". But that's getting off the point...Cutting edge: I think about music where the creators are overtly unconcerned with huge commercial success. That's not to say they don't care what other people think (though they sometimes claim this). The focus is more critical acclaim. I went to school with and roadied for musicians now in a band called Clinic. There single, The Second Line, was used on a Levis ad. Most bands in this position have exploited this position, at least for brief ubiquity. Not them, they just weren't interested. They love the position they're in: darlings of the obscure, championed by the music press, scraping a living, innovating.

"Their" single... (Obviously). "This position" used twice in one phrase. I hate reading back my posts.

If Ralph's effort isn't cutting edge, will someone be kind enough to post a poem or an extract which is considered 'ce'. And no, not you, Ralph.

I always assumed that the characteristics of cutting edge included the direction and quality of the debates that surrounded the work, that cutting edge art was as much about its effect as it was about either its form or its novelty. A piece of cutting edge work is created through the context of its contemporous stage, recognising that the cutting edge-ness of the work lay pre-dominantly outside of its creation, residing in the realms of a wider critical analysis and how the work is used by those who engage with it... or am i just taking the pith? xxx

I think a lot of pith is being taken. My feelings on this whole tedious debate is: Those who can, write. Others simply waffle on endlessly instead of leading by example in their own writing. To be blunt: which of you champions of cutting edge writing is prepared to show an example from your own work? And no, not you Ralph. Don't all rush at once...

There's nowt wrong with cutting edge as it opens new ways of appreciation but it's not something you should strive to be. You just write/create your stuff and if it proves to be a little different or fresh then...voila! Also, to try and be cutting edge is like trying to invent the wheel, a cut can only be made once. Everything that follows in it's track, no matter how sharp, will just be slicing thin air.

Everything I write is cutting edge, but unto myself. Even if it turns out to be crap it is important in my future developement.

My understanding of the term 'cutting edge' is that it is a reference to progression in areas such as science, medicine technology etc. I can't for the life of me see that it's relevant to art in any area, there is no ultimate goal to art, just different directions that all lead to the same place, a feeling of satisfaction and pleasure. Surely that is the point of art, to satisfy and stimulate pleasure in the mind. Am I wrong, or ill-informed? Perhaps I'm just thick.

Inspector Cluedo (in the closet with a septic fountain pen methinks) The piece I posted was written about ten years ago. It appeared in an anthology with other writers such as Irvine Welsh, PP Hartnett and Nicholas Royale. The book was titled 'The Living Room' and was published by 'Pulp Faction'. It is still in print and you can hunt it down if you try hard. The point is when it came out it was branded as a 'Cutting Edge ' book. Now the term 'Cutting Edge' is just a brand and that’s all these days. The purveyors of this so-called term have a limited shelf life (look at the piece I posted, pedestrian in the current climate at the very least, but at the time it sent ripples). Cutting Edge is marketing and media man (or woman’s) dream: it signals alternativeness and coolness and that is a saleable item with a limited lifespan I suppose what I am trying to say is that eventfully all true quality will out itself. John Grisham was once considered 'Cutting Edge’; he rode the storm and is now getting huge critical acclaim even if he is not my cup of tea or yours. Ralph

Inspector, no one with an ounce of modesty is likely to announce their own work to be "cutting edge" as it's a loaded term implying some kind of superiority. I wouldn't want to post up an example of somebody else's work in case they were uncomfortable with this. Yes, it's a vague term. I haven't found this the most inspiring topic either - but I'm sorry you think the debate is "tedious"; not quite enough for you to stop reviving it with posts, I notice. I know. Why don't you stop hiding behind that pseudonym, reveal yourself. Then YOU post a poem, and I will say whether I think it's cutting edge or not. And why. That's fair enough isn't it?

Emily is a big fan of Neil Gaiman - and he is considered cutting edge by many. He puts a lot of time into his graphic novels which are really just fancy cartoon books - hardly 'ce'! However I do believe that he is now using the net as a way of putting together stories with images, moving images, words and sounds all intermingled. That might well be 'ce' but I couldn't find any when I had a little trawl around. Ho Hum.

I can upload an example of "cutting edge" photography. I took this photograph of my girlfriend in the kitchen - a melancholy record of everyday domesticity - dicing carrots and chopping onions. Oh no, sorry, that's "cutting veg". (Sorry Freda for stealing your pun; and for revealing that it's yours!)

Paul, All I am asking for is an example, so I know what it's all about. An example from anywhere will do. This is the reason I am pursuing the topic. I put my name in the e-mail box in last post of mine on this thread. I know the use of pseudonyms annoys many people on the site. I do it for fun and to annoy many people on the site. I don't have any poems which I would consider cutting edge, whatever that means, and I doubt that anyone else would consider them such, either. Ralph, I suspected that your poem was posted tongue-in-cheek, though I now fully accept the reason why you posted it. The question remains - what was 'ce' about it? eddie

Ahh Mr Gibbons I Presume It was considered cutting edge at the time maybe because of the subject matter. Certainly not for technique I am sure. It’s about the first Crack outbreak in London and of the time when an old pal of mine succumbed to the drug on his way home through the East End one night. The ‘Crack’ craze was a real 'hot spud' at the time especially in London. I know that North of the border the problem struck a good deal earlier. So to answer again, I think it was just the subject matter and the sign of the times in which it reflected that made it supposedly ‘cutting edge’. Cheers and we should share a dram again soon. Ralph

I have always tended to use the term 'avant garde' though recently younger people have criticised or queried it, and I suppose that's because 'cutting edge' has taken over, although they are not strictly the same thing. The emphasis has shifted, I too link cutting edge with commerce and advertising, but in fact I find popular culture a source of inspiration. I like the presence of cutting edge or avant garde and whatever comes next. I think it keeps us on our feet. Or is a mythical thing to bear in mind. It IS about style rather than content, which is I suppose the reason mature writers who have hit upon a working style they feel comfortable with don't consciously aspire to being cutting edge. This does not invalidate their work, any more than it invalidates that of working class and largely self-taught writers.

Thanks for the explanation, Ralph. It would appear then that 'ce' is to do with subject matter. I suspected from the outset that it meant writing about drugs. I also suspect that any writer worth his/her salt is, as Les Murray put it - 'only interested in everything'.

So to summarise: freda: It IS about style rather than content Inspector Clueless: It would appear then that 'ce' is to do with subject matter. Glad that's cleared everything up.

I beg to differ, you've cleared up fu.ck all except what you think. And also that eddie doesnt appear to want to drink with ralph.

Eddie, you have a point. On reflection I think the term 'Cutting Edge' is redundent these days. Someone should come with a new term and meaning for work that might be construed risky or vital or compelling or.... I have had a drink with Mr Gibbons before in London at the Poetry Cafe. It was a pleasent experiance was it not Eddie? We have also had a late night scotch over the internet as well Ralph

Ralph, Are the terms risky, vital and compelling not enough?

Lol. A late night scotch over the internet? How does that work exactly? How do you know the other person is drinking scotch? Are we talking web cams? Hi Eddie. Sorry, it probably was obvious it was you, I'm still a bit green round these parts. Without wanting to sound too ar.sekissy, I *would* consider your work cutting edge in that you don't rest on your laurels, you continue to experiment with style and content, you always seem to be learning new tricks. That's probably a side of "cutting edge" at least. Though, like you, I don't really know what it means. I doubt there's a final definition anyway.

So you all agree with me? That's a first!

God what's in a word or indeed a phrase, it's only writing.

Exactly Jon.

But the pen is mightier than the sword.

Cutting edge surely implies a) that it's at the edge of culture, the front edge - the apogee of progression, and b) that it's cutting - startling and fresh, gets through to you. The term is troublesome in that it would seem to indicate linear progression, when the progression of literature is more of a fractal thistle - the boundaries are everywhere, from taboo subject matter, to the limits of words and the conventions of style. Because of this, it is easier to push the boat out in literature than in the realm of science. The trouble is that it has been so easy, and so sensationalised in the past, that we've become bored with the very idea, and the fashion is now for more traditional 'story telling.' Works that charter new territory in style, content and form need to justify that course - it no longer justifies itself - or else be branded as 'gimmicky.' One novel about the Holocaust, for example, was remarkable for missing out the letter 'e' - it never appeared in the book, although this was made unapparent (God knows how!) This was meant to represent the fundamental, yet easily missable shift in the fabric of civilisation that the extermination of Jews would have caused, had it been carried through. We still like this kind of thing, because it's justified in human terms. Missing the 'e' out just because it hadn't been done before would not have gone down so well.

Perec's novel was originally written in french (of course) and the main reason that he missed the letter e, was because in french, he would not be able to write the words mother father and family....and as A Void was about the holocaust, it adds an interesting dimension. As you say Hen, if it was simply done for arts sake, it wouldve been pretty meaningless.

Still the younger generation have made up for it, at least they have in Southend judging by the quantity of 'e's there are available there.

jon, to summarise your summary - 'ce' is the style of the subject matter in third angle projection. I did have a drink with Ralph at the Poetry Cafe, the only ABC event I've attended. I can't see myself attending many more due to the time and cost involved in travelling, so it may well be a 'virtual' scotch, Ralph. They're cheaper anyway. No web cams, Paul - only web drams. And I'd like to give you a hardy handshake for saying I don't rest on my laurels. In future, all my writing will be at the fractal thistle of literature.