Stephen, you are being naughty, you are quite clearly not left without
words. Nor am I 'theocratic' - I know what that word means.
Haven't any car here me ducks: a) can't drive b) couldn't afford to buy or
run one if I could.
Task for this morning is to try and get Victoria's phone reconnected as
although BT have a policy of not cutting off people who are severely
disabled and live alone they've actually gone and done that.
Best
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Vincent" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Snap/3-15-06--"The God Thing"
> I am left without words, David.
> If there is a contemporary Moliere for the theocratic, literary, poor and
> abundantly victimized, I suspect he is looking for you!
> You must be kidding somewhere, or much better than this "papple".
> When it emerges, I will always be interested.
>
> Stephen (who, like Tom Raworth, has an old-fashioned restored fifty's
> Caddilac in the second garage, and a Hummer in the other, both - in lieu
of
> gas - running on pure poetry).
>
>
>
> > I think, Stephen, the empire I live in can be loosely described as the
> > Anglo-American global capitalist one.
> >
> > I'm glad you remain open to recent UK poets, particularly as my opinion
of
> > them is that they are neglible, my chauvinism seems to have lost its
point
> > on this.
> >
> > I am, and remain, a member of the UK underclass, to adapt Macdiamid's
> > phrase, I am not for the poor I am of them. The poetry scene in the UK
is
> > sickeningly bourgeouise, (and that applies to the mainstream, the
> > pseudo-avant-garde, the performance poets, the ethnics, the whole damn
lot)
> > as is the equivalent cultural wank in the States.
> >
> > I look at times at Ron Silliman's industrious blog: recently he outlined
his
> > version of literary history, after about 1950 it blossoms into an
enormity
> > of Americans, the this school or the that, never mind that none of them
have
> > a memorable line between them, but they're AMERICAN.
> >
> > Yaheey, talk about chauvinism. If you want an index of recent US poetry
the
> > writer with most impact is Kent Johnson, of all people, it says a lot.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen Vincent" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: Snap/3-15-06--"The God Thing"
> >
> >
> >> Your chauvinism, David, at best, at least I find entertaining!
> >> In the States, up at least until 1968, we particularly loved our
academics
> >> who trained and got soaked as much as possible in the England habitat,
> >> patois, etc, and - after all that wonderful stuff- could still manage
to
> >> return to this poor tawdry country - and do their righteous, committed
> > best
> >> to let us in on our true Anglo literary foundations, give us a little
bit
> > of
> >> the Irish, reform us of our consumerish ways. Etc. etc. Currently, if
we
> >> don't behave, we get a regular dose of Christopher Hitchens to remind
us
> > of
> >> all of that (Ugg!).
> >> Jeezus, David, what century, what empire are you living in??
> >>
> >> Tho I remain open, I probably do not have a great breadth of what is
vital
> >> to English poetry in the last 40 years - tho, religious or not, I most
> > taken
> >> by the work of Tom Raworth, Lee Harwood, T Pickard, Prynne, and
recently G
> >> Monk, A Halsey among others, including Larkin in small doses. And I
know I
> >> have a tough time reading most poets in the TLS, mostly for reasons of
> >> boredom.
> >>
> >> But your remarks re American poetry suggest the favor of bigotry over
any
> >> genuine reading and breadth. I suspect you would find ones that you
would
> >> give in to liking! But that is not for me to determine!
> >>
> >> Stephen V
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Stephen, my dear, I mentioned Herbert etc and Hopkins (who was not
17th
> >>> century)
> >>>
> >>> it is not so much a matter of a tradition bequeathed by those writers
> >>> remaining as a language that is common, you have to understand the
> > duality
> >>> of English in this matter, it +is+ a globalised language, but also
it's
> > a
> >>> backyard patois, which in the case of UZ LOT is soaked by habitation
and
> >>> usage. This is not to deny or disclaim the validity of others but you
> > have
> >>> to realise that it is our language you speak (which is fine that
> > non-English
> >>> English thrives but don't deny us our validity). My point about the
> >>> narcissism of US poetic culture was not just vituperative, the
dominant
> >>> impression I get from US poetry is that of a consumer culture looking
at
> >>> itself in a mirror, sadly, the UK and others are going down the same
> > path.
> >>>
> >>> As for the 17th century it made the world we word in, in certain
senses.
> > I
> >>> seem to recall that the American colonies existed during the English
> > Civil
> >>> War and certain ideas of independence began after the Restoration.
> >>>
> >>> For religious reasons.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Stephen Vincent" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:08 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Snap/3-15-06--"The God Thing"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> You have my compassionate forbearance, David!
> >>>> My post was not to discount the continued vibrancy of what any of us
> > with
> >>>> half an ear - no matter our geo-center - no doubt hear in Herbert,
> > Donne
> >>> or
> >>>> Milton. God bless those who cannot.
> >>>> My point was that many of us do not continue to define the
> > possibilities
> >>> of
> >>>> language - in this case religious ones - within the limits/frames of
a
> >>> 17th
> >>>> century (i.e. antiquarian)formal canon, as attractive as those
> > resonances
> >>>> may still reverberate. If that tradition remains and a working
> > possibility
> >>>> for you, I would not discount it.
> >>>>
> >>>> My mention of the diversity of American poets who have rejected that
> > canon
> >>>> and who may be considered 'religious', as well as influenced by
> > Buddhism
> >>>> was meant to reflect the diversity of such. Indeed I have trouble
> > reading
> >>>> Bly, or a sustained body of work by Mary Oliver. Your broad brush
> > level
> >>> of
> >>>> vituperation, contempt and dismissal of all the poets I mention, I
find
> >>>> curious, particularly that it seems filled with the rage that spawned
a
> >>> few,
> >>>> more than sad religious wars, "antiquarian" that those ones (prior to
> >>>> Blair/Bush and the invasion of Iraq) may now seem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this really happening??!! I thought your earlier post re the
> >>>> complications of writing religious poetry in a mercantile time was on
> > the
> >>>> spot.
> >>>>
> >>>> Stephen V
> >>>> Blog: http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ANTIQUARIAN?????
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Considering the relative briefness of human life, against the
enormous
> >>>>> scales of process, Herbert or Donne or Milton or Hopkins happened
> >>> yesterday.
> >>>>> It behoves us to recall who 'we' were because so are 'we' still. The
> >>>>> language we have is 'antiquarian' (I am really fuming at that
> > philistine
> >>>>> word). As for contemporary American writers, and the egocentric
> >>> narcissism
> >>>>> the phrase invokes, you include Iron John Bly and Handicrafts Gary
at
> >>> the
> >>>>> start of your summoning of greedy babies. Religious poets? Get lost,
> > all
> >>> you
> >>>>> have with these is a thin patina of faux spirituality, a veneer, the
> >>> poetic
> >>>>> equivalent of a cookie.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Genuinely angry here
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dave
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: "Stephen Vincent" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:02 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Snap/3-15-06--"The God Thing"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess my problem here is that the discussion seems framed in
> >>> antiquarian
> >>>>>> frames (Herbert, Milton, et al). Contemporary religious writers are
> >>> many
> >>>>> who
> >>>>>> do not either correspond, echo and/or re-work those frames.
> >>>>>> Buddhism - in many of its diverse threads - has, for example, been
a
> >>> major
> >>>>>> influence on contemporary American writers, just judging by this
> > brief
> >>>>> list:
> >>>>>> Philip Whalen, Gary Snyder, Armand Schwerner, Diane de Prima, Mary
> >>> Oliver,
> >>>>>> Robert Bly, among many more.
> >>>>>> Styles apart, none of these folks can be said write from positions
> >>> shaped
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>> language, rituals, etc. of the "high church" - whether it Catholic
or
> >>>>>> Anglican - tho many come out of Catholic, Protestant and Jewish
> >>> faiths.
> >>>>>> The source/cause of renunciation is probably variously interesting.
> >>>>>> The level of commitment/devotion - in both poetry and life
> > practice -
> >>> is,
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>> believe, religious, and no less compelling.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And, just thinking about it, after listening and reading the work
of
> >>>>> Robert
> >>>>>> Adamson, isn't there a level of devotion (affirmative) that may be
> >>>>> ascribed
> >>>>>> as religious? The level of affirmation in the work indicates to me
an
> >>>>>> implicit belief in something, as well as a desire to impart that to
> > the
> >>>>>> listener/reader. But maybe that's just good old fashioned 'joy.'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't mean to diffuse the original jar here of the Anglican
> >>> container.
> >>>>>> But I will.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Stephen Vincent
> >>>>>> http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
> >>>>>> Where "Tenderly" is still fiddling with Stein.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> i think the distinction over religious-spiritual writers is this:
> > are
> >>>>> they
> >>>>>>> trying to preach at us, set themselves up as priests (not
> > necessarily
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> same as actually being a priest, as R.S.Thomas usually does but
> >>> doesn't
> >>>>>>> always write from a priest-position) and try to make us unhappy,
> >>>>> diminish
> >>>>>>> our life-force, or are they writers becoming-all sorts of other
> >>> things,
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> enormous variety, so e.g. Fanny Howe never becomes-priest, and
David
> >>>>> Jones
> >>>>>>> is (as drew milne says) interested in the material history of
> >>>>> Catholicism,
> >>>>>>> and other poets strongly associated with a faith also give us
their
> >>> best
> >>>>>>> work in this latter mode -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> really it's not a special case for religious poets at all, i don't
> >>>>> think, as
> >>>>>>> other poets can take up the same position, a teacher position, and
> > try
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> make us unhappy, proclaim a lack
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Edmund
|