Not having read all those philosophers, I cant speak back to them,  
Chris, but, as I'm having trouble following your argument, I pick up  
on a few things.

The Cantos escape simple lyric monologism by channeling, so to speak.  
so many other voices, even if a lot of them sound a lot like EP (bot  
all do; that's what collage does).

You seem to be arguing that lyric cannot be anything but monological,  
& each single lyric may be, but put a  group of them together &  
suddenly the possibility of dialogue emerges. Various voices side by  
side...

I'm not sure what you refer to as Language Poetry, but I can say that,  
while a lot of it bores me to tears (maybe because it denies 'voice'  
altogether), other versions mix lyric & other formal patterns together  
in what I find to be very interesting ways. A lot of what I call 'anti- 
lyric' there. (And, many such poets certainly see a potential for  
'performing' the language they steal, borrow, parody, whatever...)

As for novels, I partly echo Alison, & partly wonder why you worry  
about it all; the mix, shifting, of narrative & something like lyric  
voice seems, um, 'natural' (well, you know: fitting) to the novel...?

Mainly bemused,

Doug


On 16-Mar-09, at 3:10 AM, Christopher C Jones wrote:

> Doug, I think you are correct in terms of the difficult movements of
> lyric and narrative and this is difficult to write about, so I may  
> have
> to live with that rather then trying to find an easy way. For me, the
> distinction between lyric and narrative gives too much ground to
> Aristotle and I think this is where Language Poetry and the avant- 
> garde
> I am aligned with seem now to differ. Of course, it is needed that
> avant-gardes engage in contestable discourses since this establishes  
> our
> rights to exist. This is very different to the right to life of
> anti-abortionist ideology which is, dishonestly, a claim for mass
> suicide against life instead of the truths of life for which
> avant-gardist writers and artist engage in with contesting discourses.
> The right of women to decide what they do with their bodies and if and
> when they have children is very different to a contestation on the
> rights to life in advant-garde writing formations. It is also not a
> democratic debate in which those who score the highest points are
> decreed the winner against the losing side but rather the very
> contestation itself which gives avant-gardes their respective lives.
>
> So, in quick summary, Language Poetry rests on a misreading of  
> Derrida,
> or a partial reading which is the same thing, which allows them to
> disavow speech and voice in favour of a language writing and in so
> doing, now without voice, are free to find, discover, rediscover and
> create new monologic lyric voices. It appears then that Bakhtin is  
> quite
> correct in claiming that lyric poetry needs a monologic voice and this
> applies as much to Pound's Cantos as it does to the lyric poetry of  
> the
> Language poets. The claims I have read that Pound proves Bakhtin
> incorrect are themselves mistaken. Lyric poetry needs monologic lyric
> voice and Language poetry demonstrates this by disavowing voice and in
> so doing a creation of new lyric voices is indeed possible as a
> monologic lyric.
>
> Given the current horrific international political situation the
> contestations of avant-gardes has now become one of a far more civil
> discussion but it still continues. If I am to follow M Perloff this  
> may
> have shifted to our various theoretical sources in which Benjamin and
> Deleuze seem to be lined up for dispute and given this we would have  
> to
> include Bakhtin. I think it is important not to underestimate the
> violence of Bakhtin's critique of Kant and Aristotle which is done by
> ripping the transcendental out of Kant. Aristotle's categorical  
> grounds
> cannot survive this critique, so it may follow that Bakhtin may still
> have some words in a critical assessment of Language poetry.
>
> Now, onto lyric and novels. While it is true that novels do not need a
> monologic lyric voice, it is a very different thing to say novels need
> more lyric. What is at issue here is the plural nature of lyric(s).  
> More
> lyric is different to a need of lyric verse for monologic lyric. I  
> don't
> think it is by accident or choice that Robert Gluck and Dennis Cooper
> write both lyric poetry and prose novels. (If anyone has "Jack the
> Modernist", Gluck's poetry or Cooper's novel series, I may be able to
> pay for it with paypal or mastercard, btw.)
>
> This also leads onto the carnivalesque creation of characters that  
> begin
> with abstract bodies, that at first may carry only a name, and  
> through a
> spiritual essence the creation of subjectivities. What does it  
> matter if
> one says I or not is a real question and not an anti-subjective and
> anti-humanist rhetorical remark on D&G's behalf. On this rests an  
> entire
> anti-humanist mistaken reading of Deleuze and Guattarri which is alien
> the the very question being posed and as such hostile to D&G and the
> question of subjectivity.
>
> Anyways, perhaps that is an intro to the difficulty??? Maybe someone
> with an investment or knowledge of Language Poetry may be able to
> respond, also? It does get difficult, that is true.
>
> Chris Jones.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 10:16 -0600, Douglas Barbour wrote:
>
>> Maybe it's where the 'how and why novels need more lyric' applies or
>> acts in the novel's narrative moves that is going to be difficult to
>> figure out....
>>
>> Doug
>

Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/

Latest books:
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
Wednesdays'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html

It's always night or we wouldn't need light.

	Thelonious Monk