>And as to British poetry being more conservative!! Which British poetry
have
>you in mind? What about (snip long list of poets) and so many others?
>Assuming you mean conservative in the loose sense of relatively
>unadventurous, I can think of so many British poets to whom this simply
does
>not apply.
>Far more than the highly filtered handful. Please don't offer
>pseudo-objective justifications for the forced invisibility of so much
>exciting poetry.
Well, Randolph, the original point was about how few British poets have a
widespread reputation in the US, and how long it takes for that to come
about. The problem here is that most of the names you mention, in the Venn
diagram of British poetry, are in a set which doesn't even touch the one
marked 'British poetry' as most people (readers and writers and critics)
understand the term. You don't have to like it. With my good pluralist
head on, neither do I. But 'forced invisibility'? Who are you kidding?
Would this be the Poetry Police, or The London Establishment again? Most of
the poets you mention will have a certain standing in the US, by the very
reason of being in publications and anthologies which are ruled by
'pseudo-objective justifications'. There's more than one sort of
conservatism.
Roddy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|