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
|
