Roddy,
don't you think that defining British Poetry so that all those British poets
I mentioned aren't in it is a way of forcing them out of the arena?
Randolph
----- Original Message -----
From: Roddy Lumsden <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: Logevity
> >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
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|