“The Nationwide adverts, along with collateral backlash, have been sparking debates among poets on social media for several weeks now. I put a call out for pieces open to discussing the topic from an interesting perspective. First up is poet Sophie McKeand. – Claire Trévien, Sabotage Reviews.
While I enjoyed the article from Sophie McKeand, and actually agreed with a lot of what she had to say – I felt it missed the point.
There’s nothing wrong with taking a job you would rather not do, to make money. There’s everything right with it in fact, and every hard-working artist knows that you need the stability and comfort of money to continue developing your own projects and continue to write. I’m not from a privileged background, and I’m the first person to go splashing my face on this and that to keep the family home ticking. But I have very mixed feelings about the Nationwide (on your side? – really?) poem project.
The first time I watched one of these videos, I felt manipulated. Rather than enjoying the poem (or pleasant delivery) I was distracted by the fact that I was being fed the same old big money-making corporate idea, gift-wrapped in poetry. We all know, coming from a bank (building society if you wish, but bank really) what this idea is. And we all also know that this idea is bullshit.
“Give me your money so I can gamble it and I will make you happy”. This is the idea, in case you were feeling in the dark. Inadvertently (and unfortunately) the poets got the raw end of the deal, and the questions such as ‘why?’ or ‘how could you?’ and so on, went directly to them. But I don’t think this ‘backlash’ came from ignorance to this, or a misunderstanding. This is all to do with a wider, and deeper problem.
Asking the question
When our friend pops up on the screen with a nice poem telling us that Nationwide is our friend too, and we can all be happy poets together in their arms, is the consensus now that we forget everything else and congratulate them?
No. I don’t understand why (in today’s society especially) we constantly feel the need to congratulate one another – excessively and often, sometimes with emptiness. Whatever this campaign means to you – to me it’s yet another clever spin from another bank trying to make money out of people so they can make more for themselves. If the poets involved did this because they felt they were somehow doing a good thing, and contributing to the broader world in a beautiful and positive way – then this is fine. But just because I admire your work, or know you well, doesn’t necessarily mean I have to endorse this particular stage of your career. I can’t. It isn’t extreme intolerance (as some have suggested). It’s simply questioning the bullshit.
Kindness as a currency
If I’d taken on this job (and I’m not saying I wouldn’t) I would have expected these negative reactions – more so, hoped for them. Yes, intolerance can be depressing. But I don’t think this ‘intolerance’ is really being directed at the poets themselves. It’s at the project, and the false ideals it encourages the poets (and indeed their poetry) to endorse. ‘Currency of kindness’ really stuck with me, and made me think. I asked questions, I discussed it among friends and openly on social media. It’s a beautiful phrase, but a dreadful idea. Can kindness be a currency? Should it be? A statement like this implies that kindness is something we can buy, we can sell, we can withdraw, withhold, we can spend out on. It can be bought and bartered for, secreted, given in abundance, or not at all. Banks withhold, sell, and spend dry. Human qualities, such as kindness, are meant rise above all this.
I get it’s just a poem – but its a poem and a project that unsettles me. Not least because it can be seen as one of the many (many) contributing factors that perpetuates and feeds the larger problems of the world. YES. Those things that ‘really matter’ in society – such as poverty and inequality. This is the bigger picture here – this is (I think) why people reacted so badly. And I think they can be forgiven it – even if they did target the wrong people, even if their choice of language was poor.
If it were me, I’d be more depressed if people didn’t take the time to question this project. To point out the flaws or contradictions. This doesn’t mean by default, the poets shouldn’t have done it. But this also doesn’t mean that another person shouldn’t have asked them why. Watching these Nationwide advertisements, reminds me of first time I watched the Lloyds Bank advert with the horse (do you remember it?) – it crippled me until the final moment when I realised “oh it’s banking” – followed by anger and a sort of grim admiration for the brilliance of the idea.
And by the way, do you really think the clever minds behind the Nationwide project didn’t predict all this? All news is good news. Money is talk.
I’m not saying that Sophie McKnead is wrong. She’s absolutely right and I urge you to give her article a read. I’m just offering my response. This is why people did what they did. On a deep, integral level they felt undermined and manipulated. To take a spin on Voltaire, I defend to the death your right to say what you say – to do what you do. But that doesn’t mean I should agree with the fact that you’ve done it.