OK OK, getting a little cross now Mr McKendrick. Jeff DID concede the
chronological mistake, more than once. And I think it is the height of
arrogance to say that the mistake showed he has "no interest in or
knowledge of Baudelaire", particularly 'interest'. Why do you say
that? And why are you so antagonistic and sarcastic? We don't all have
encyclopedic knowledge of stuff we are interested in. I have some huge
areas of interest and knowledge but I know that if I were to have to
answer questions on them, particularly on such things as names, dates
and chronologies, I would be very unsure. It very rarely invalidates
the larger issues, unless the detail is an actual lynchpin of the
argument, which in this case it wasn't, it was just a tentative step.
In this particular instance, for example, I knew that Baudelaire had
translated Poe, but in my mind Poe was always a bit later in the
century than he really was, and I could have easily made the same
mistake as Jeff. Not a big deal. It might detract from evidence for
the notion behind his original question, but it doesn't invalidate it.
I think part of the reaction to Jeff's Wordsworth thing from our
overseas buddies is down to the usual lack of experience of the
peculiarities of the British scene (but I certainly acknowledge what
Mark said about how the noise made on the net can skew our picture of
others' problems) . I understand the importance of the Wordsworth
question, whatever the answer to it is, because of the on-going
problem that certain types of poetry have in this country in making
their case against the literary establishment's on-going support of
poetries to which at times the adjectives 'empirical' and 'parochial',
and lots of others of course, have been applied, at the expense of the
names on cris's list etc.. most of whom are a complete irrelevancy to
the average poetry reader in this country, even now. Jeff, like me,
appears to want answers, and those answers are not just to be found in
the present. Wordsworth, with regard to the turn he gave to English
romanticism, might possibly have some relation to this thing.
i realise that 'this thing' has never been a problem for you, lucky man!
Regards
Tim Allen
On 26 Aug 2009, at 11:28, Jamie McKendrick wrote:
> Jeff,
> You posted the list a blog piece about the origins and development
> of Modernism. I pointed out a factual error and then went on to say,
> with numerous examples, why I thought the whole thesis was skewed.
> I'm afraid this can happen when you publish your opinions in places
> where people can comment.
> Instead of 'conceding' that mistake about Poe (a mistake that shows
> you really have no interest in or knowledge of Baudelaire) and then
> claiming it merely strengthens your initial point, it might have
> been better just to apologize for talking absolute bollocks.
> As regards the examples I gave to try and make the discussion more
> grounded - you haven't given any yourself of either nineteenth- or
> twentieth-century "empiricism and parochialness". You merely re-
> iterate vacuous terms like "British mainstream poetry" as if that
> will justify everything.
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Side"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:00 AM
> Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
> Wordsworth?"
>
>
> “It was my first mail that first drew attention to the anomaly by
> complementing Poe on his clairvoyance, and you hadn't 'conceded' this
> point when I wrote my second mail.”
>
> Perhaps not, but I assumed your ubiquitous sarcasm in it not worth
> responding to.
>
>
> “I'm afraid that like your claim about Poe, your judgements concerning
> Wordsworth, Shelley etc. just won't stay afloat. It's not "cherry-
> picking"
> to quote a few lines from Wordsworth. As another example, the whole
> Immortality Ode (in which he posits an innate knowledge and a
> prenatal existence) would refute your idea of his 'empiricism' as
> would
> the animism of the Lucy poems”
>
> True the philosophical “argument” in the content of these poems posit
> an extra-empirically based faculty and a belief in a non-material
> universe, but the execution of these ideas are (apart from some of the
> Lucy poems) delivered in a poetical language that us empirically
> sound,
> in that it is didactic, as it has to be to convey his message. Of
> course,
> not all instances of his poetry will be executed in this manner, but
> that
> is to be expected, as he didn’t always live up to his own poetic
> council.
> A careful examination of his letters, his Preface to Lyrical ballads
> and
> his sister’s journals will produce copious examples of his
> advocating the
> use of descriptive language for poetic composition.
>
>
> “Sincerely, I can't see why you believe "I keep trying to use
> misdirection." No-one would think of denying the importance of US
> poets in High Modernism. It hardly needs to be re-asserted. But in
> response to this sweeping final paragraph, I merely glanced at the
> first
> 100 years - and could have sited a handful of others such as Arthur
> Clough, Christina Rossetti and Thomas Beddoes to make the same
> point. And that's before starting on the vexed issue of the twentieth
> century. But maybe you're not really interested in Baudelaire, Poe,
> Wordsworth etc. but only want to use them to glue together some
> putative tradition that explains "the appalling state of the
> mainstream".
> You can really get much more parochial than that.”
>
>
> I don’t see anything controversial in the paragraph you quote from me.
> It is true that Wordwsworth has influenced poetry for the past 200
> years, that’s why he is important, even his admirers believe this. Of
> course, individual poet’s works may not always crudely display this
> influence, but it is there—how can it not be, given his importance. I
> admit that the poets you mention are problematic, again, this is to be
> expected. My point is that his influence still pertains to this day,
> especially in British mainstream poetry. This is quite a modest
> assertion, I think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:38:32 +0100, Jamie Mckendrick
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>> I'm perplexed by your response to my mails:
>>
>>> Jamie, I wish you would be less tenacious in your quibbling on this
>>> matter. Here is my response:
>>
>>>> “Apart from the back-to-front chronology of Poe and Baudelaire,
> 200
>>>> years of British (and Irish) poetry swept aside with those two
>>>> words "empiricist" and "parochial"?”
>>
>>> I have conceded this point in my response to those who earlier
> pointed
>>> it out. It seems rather than the French having influenced Poe he
>>> nfluenced them. Poe not being British, my main point stands: British
>>> poets had little to do with the development of High Modernism.
>>
>> It was my first mail that first drew attention to the anomaly by
> complementing
>> Poe on his clairvoyance, and you hadn't 'conceded' this point when I
> wrote my
>> second mail.
>> I'm afraid that like your claim about Poe, your judgements
> concerning
>> Wordsworth, Shelley etc. just won't stay afloat. It's not "cherry-
> picking" to
>> quote a few lines from Wordsworth. As another example, the whole
>> Immortality Ode (in which he posits an innate knowledge and a
> prenatal
>> existence) would refute your idea of his 'empiricism' as would the
> animism of
>> the Lucy poems.
>> You originally argued that unlike US poetry:
>>
>>> British poetry, conversely, has continued in the tradition of
> Wordsworthian
>>> empiricism and parochialism, largely antagonistic to any use of a
> poetic
>>> language that basis its affects on aspects other than
>>> descriptiveness
> and
>>> anecdotal confession. How long this will remain the case is
> uncertain. It has
>>> certainly been the case for over 200 years.
>>
>> Sincerely, I can't see why you believe "I keep trying to use
> misdirection." No-
>> one would think of denying the importance of US poets in High
> Modernism. It
>> hardly needs to be re-asserted. But in response to this sweeping
>> final
>> paragraph, I merely glanced at the first 100 years - and could have
> sited a
>> handful of others such as Arthur Clough, Christina Rossetti and
> Thomas
>> Beddoes to make the same point. And that's before starting on the
> vexed
>> issue of the twentieth century. But maybe you're not really
>> interested
> in
>> Baudelaire, Poe, Wordsworth etc. but only want to use them to glue
> together
>> some putative tradition that explains "the appalling state of the
> mainstream".
>> You can really get much more parochial than that.
>> Respectfully,
>> Jamie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|