> However, as far fantasmic "targets and silhouettes" go, I think there's
> something in what you say, perhaps in the sense that the universities are
> perceived to have provided sponsoring discourse in a way that happens much
> less in the U.K. Creative writing programs in the U.S. may still be
> largely dominated by the poetry of lyric anecdote, but L= and its avatars
> attract significant critical attention (it's very often a battle fought
> around the ramparts of theory). It may be that this, along with the
> institutional apparatus (of e.g. the Buffalo list), creates the sense of a
> closed and highly stratified world of the avant-garde.
Yes, Jeremy, this is much more my perception than my awkward words in my
last might show. Yes, indeed, 'fantasmic'. That gets it exact.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Green" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: Maps and Activists
> Dave,
>
> I think Candice's point is a fair one. I'm thinking of stuff I've read
> recently - from presses such as krupskaya, Edge, The Figures, Hard Press,
> Tender Buttons - which doesn't, as far as I'm aware, have university
> backing. Although some of the universities presses have taken on left
field
> poetry, it usually seems to be a case of canonizing established figures
(Susan
> Howe at Wesleyan, Charles Bernstein most recently at Chicago).
>
> However, as far fantasmic "targets and silhouettes" go, I think there's
> something in what you say, perhaps in the sense that the universities are
> perceived to have provided sponsoring discourse in a way that happens much
> less in the U.K. Creative writing programs in the U.S. may still be
> largely dominated by the poetry of lyric anecdote, but L= and its avatars
> attract significant critical attention (it's very often a battle fought
> around the ramparts of theory). It may be that this, along with the
> institutional apparatus (of e.g. the Buffalo list), creates the sense of a
> closed and highly stratified world of the avant-garde. I'd certainly want
> to contest this, not least because the whole Kentish/Debrutian procedure
> seemed so entirely magnetized by the chessboard of reputations (to checker
> a metaphor). To put it a different way, my feeling about KJ (particularly
> after I'd been treated to one of his backchannel threatfests) was/is that
> he should get out more (the last few months providing the kind of further
> evidence that none of us needed). I do agree, though, that this was all
> projected very crudely and impatiently onto the present list, with all
> kinds of misconceptions, as you say.
>
> Best,
>
> Jeremy
>
> >
> > what I'm thinking of is the very strong university basis that poetry
> > publishing retains in the US as against its more diluted British
presence.
> > 'Avant-garde' publications have a haven in some US universities which
can,
> > in the eyes of some, make 'established avant-gardes' like LangPo a
> > silhouette of the 'enemy' in the eyes of some US dissident poets, as an
> > object with institutional support. I think that the DeBrot/Kent assault
here
> > was partly based on a misconception of the status of the poets here as
> > representing some kind of established hierarchy, as they see, say,
Bernstein
> > as being. I don't know if I'm expressing this very adequately, but do
you
> > get my drift?
> >
>
|