In a message dated 5/23/00 5:41:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< I'd agree with Finnegan that, in one sense at least, he's not innovative
(at least in the obvious LangPo sense), but neither do I think he's
derivative. He's writing in a tradition that he's extending. (OK, what
tradition ...) Perhaps his lack of visibility in America is that he
doesn't fit in anywhere obvious there. In Britland, it's easy to see him
as part of a movement towards domestic poetry, a line maybe going back to
Hardy. As Anne Stevenson has (or am I wrong?) a higher reputation in
Britain than America. >>
Robin,
I didn't mean to be casually dismissive of Lynch's poetry. There
are so many poets doing good work within, or extending,
the tradition(s, pick one). The vagaries of visibility: Timing,
the right connections, an angle (who could blame Lynch if he's
getting a little extra spin with the "undertaker-poet" angle?)...
and suddenly the poet is on the cover of the American Poetry Review,
wins a Major Prize or is featured in an article in New York Times
Magazine section, as Anne Carson was recently. Few in the
states knew she existed till recently. I got plenty of blank stares
when I asked rather well read poet-friends if they'd seen the article
or knew her work. But she may or may not be the next big thang.
And certainly it's the case that rubrics like "innovative" or "experimental"
or "avant garde" provide convenient cover for lots of lackluster poetry.
Finnegan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|