Re: Objectivism and Language Poetry. Few of the extremely varied crew
that's identified with LANGUAGE review, as much (perhaps more) an
advertizing ploy than a coherent group, owe anything much to the
objectivists, but they certainly have been eager to coopt the common
ancestors of a great deal of contemporary poetry, so as to create the
impression that they represent the only true line of descent. How can
these manoeuvres of the present tarnish the past?
I have a house guest who identifies herself as a Language poet. She
was surprised that Jackson MacLow wrote the blurb for one of my
books. Jackson wasn't a Language poet, though he didn't fight
cooptationand its publicity value and was guardedly friendly with
many of them. It's pretty sad that he's been forced into a box as
predecessor, obscuring the extraordinary range of his practice. But
such is life.
Mark
At 11:51 AM 1/1/2008, you wrote:
>It's possible, of course, that the Language poets misread the objectivists.
>Also, there is a lot of distance between Reznikoff & Zukofsky.
>
>jd
>
>
>On Jan 1, 2008 10:42 AM, Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > That's interesting. I would have never guessed. Isn't Objectivism
> > tarnished for you by its major presence for language poetry?
> >
> > Barry Alpert
> >
>
>--
>Joseph Duemer
>Professor of Humanities
>Clarkson University
>[sharpsand.net]
|