Jamie,

I apologise for my remark about Tim's question not being addressed to 
you. I can assure you it was made in the spirit of a bemused aside 
rather than a questioning of your right to answer it.

As you suggested yesterday, albeit in jest, but it was a good idea, I 
think we do need some sort of equivalent to those smiley faces they 
have on web forums. I mean this seriously, by the way. Lots of 
unintentional slights could be avoided this way.

Randolph may know of a way of making this technically possible.

Best,

Jeff




On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:32:50 +0100, Jamie McKendrick 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Dear Randolph,
>   I sent you b/c earlier (yesterday) a short email with a question 
about
>list etiquette - which failed to get through. I'm most grateful that you
>responded to the same issue on your own initiative. Anyway I think it's
>better to make my point openly and on the list, since it involves a
>complaint.
>    I realize Jeff has been given a hard time of it, and some of that by 
me,
>but my patience has worn thin with a series of petty taunts and 
manufactured
>misunderstandings. (Or if genuine, they speak of a worrying inability to
>read.)
>   His reply to my objection to this last provocation carries another 
false
>allegation: "I just found it slightly amusing that you assumed it was 
for
>you." I didn't assume it was addressed to me but to the list in 
general, and
>even prefaced my reply by saying "I'm the wrong person to answer 
this ..."
>
>   I've tried to keep the conversation relevant to the thread and 
mobile,
>but with these last posts I'm getting bogged down in replying to
>interminable and distracting accusations. This is also tedious for 
anyone
>else who wishes to follow the thread.
>   I have never asked to read Jeff's thesis, but was prepared to look at 
a
>couple of chapters because I could understand his claim that there 
was a
>serious argument that needed to be considered at length. It's still
>something of an imposition, and my opinion remains that if you post 
to a
>list a blog entry you should be able to discuss the question without
>arrogantly requiring everyone to read your extended work before 
commenting
>further.
>
>     It's seems to me ironic and puzzling that just at the point where I
>tried to make the disagreement with Jeff less adversarial, my attempt 
should
>have such an inflammatory effect.
>
>      When I entered this list I didn't expect to be welcomed, but have
>found my posts treated fairly and my arguments listened to. Even 
where
>there's been conflict - as with Tim Allen for instance - the issues have
>been aired, and I think productively. This was possible because even if
>hostile to aspects of my argument, he's attended to what I've actually
>written. And I believe I've done the same.
>     I don't mind straightforward conflict though I'd prefer equable
>conversation.What I don't think I can bear with is this small-minded
>taunting from Jeff.  So I'll withdraw for a while - I'll be away anyway 
for
>a few days - and consider whether I wish to remain on the list.
>In the meantime,
>with thanks for your intervention on this issue, and best wishes,
>Jamie
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Randolph Healy" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:51 PM
>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since 
Wordsworth?"
>
>
>> Jeffrey,
>>
>> anyone on this list is welcome to respond to any post.
>>
>> Randolph
>>
>> Jeffrey Side wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>>
>>> I don't think Tim was asking you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:54:37 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "A question: why was Wordsworth the more important and lasting
>>> Romantic
>>>
>>>> influence on subsequent English poetry (if it seems he was) and 
not
>>>> Blake or Keats or Coleridge or Shelley (I'll leave Byron out of 
it)? "
>>>>
>>>> I'm the wrong person to answer this because I'm not 
convinced "he
>>> was".
>>>> Shelley and Keats I think were arguably the more influential in 
the
>>> period
>>>> between their deaths and at least until Yeats, though this is 
almost
>>>> impossible to quantify. And I don't see Wordsworth being more
>>> prominent
>>>> afterwards.
>>>> Browning is devoted to Shelley (compare his 'Memorabilia' about
>>> Shelley to
>>>> 'The Lost Leader' about Wordsworth). I see much more of Keats 
than
>>> of
>>>> Wordsworth  in Tennyson. Hopkins adored The Immortality Ode 
but
>>> his way of
>>>> writing seems, perhaps of all, most distant to Wordsworth's plain
>>> speech.
>>>> The Pre-raphaelites: Keats. Yeats, as I mentioned, is much more
>>> drawn to
>>>> Blake and Shelley.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Jamie
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Tim Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:31 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
>>> Wordsworth?"
>>>
>>>> Have to agree with Jeff on this, even though I can't really help - I
>>>> just don't know enough about English poetry of that period.
>>>>
>>>> A question: why was Wordsworth the more important and lasting
>>> Romantic
>>>
>>>> influence on subsequent English poetry (if it seems he was) and 
not
>>>> Blake or Keats or Coleridge or Shelley (I'll leave Byron out of it)?
>>>> Or is this a chicken and egg question?
>>>>
>>>> Tim A.
>>>>
>>>> On 30 Aug 2009, at 16:12, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think you know what I mean. I'm not talking about poets or 
poetry
>>> in
>>>
>>>>> the way you may think matters to this debate i.e. 
comparatively--
>>>>>
>>> this
>>>
>>>>> poem/poet is better than that one etc. I'm simply talking about 
the
>>>>> influence of certain modes of writing that became widespread in
>>> early
>>>
>>>>> C20. It is the influence of these writing modes that are the 
main
>>> issue.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:55:02 +0100, David Bircumshaw
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeffrey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David, I'm not talking about poetry or poets<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, there was an episode of 'Father Ted' once in which 
three
>>>>>>
>>>>> bishops
>>>>>
>>>>>> were going to be visiting so Father Ted had to coach the 
booze-
>>>>>>
>>>>> beclouded
>>>>>
>>>>>> Father Jack into saying 'That would be an ecumenical matter' 
to
>>>>>>
>>>>> anything the
>>>>>
>>>>>> bishops said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I'll start doing the like: "That Would Be A Poetical 
Matter."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, that feels better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/8/30 Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "So I have to say I find Jeffrey's focus in itself parochial.  
Poetry
>>> in
>>>
>>>>>>> England had its time of greatness, and a considerable 
length of
>>>>>>>
>>>>> time at
>>>>>
>>>>>>> that, but the focus of these things moves. I'd hazard that if
>>> there is
>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>> be really 'significant' poetry in this century it won't be in a
>>>>>>> European
>>>>>>> language at all."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David, I'm not talking about poetry or poets, as I have said
>>>>>>>
>>>>> repeatedly,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> but about a US/French influence that became international 
in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>> early
>>>>>
>>>>>>> C20.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:36:24 +0100, David Bircumshaw
>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A point further, if I had to say who I thought the
>>> most  'significant'
>>>
>>>>>>>> European language poets of the last century I'd 
unhesitatingly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> name
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Celan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and Vallejo, both at their best go far beyond English 
language
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> modernists in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> expression and connotation. It seemed so to me thirty 
years
>>> ago
>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> does now. So I have to say I find Jeffrey's focus in itself
>>> parochial.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Poetry in England had its time of greatness, and a 
considerable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> length
>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> time at that, but the focus of these things moves. I'd 
hazard
>>> that
>>>
>>>>> if
>>>>>
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is to be really 'significant' poetry in this century it won't 
be  in
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> European language at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2009/8/30 David Bircumshaw 
<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't disagree that Paris was the artistic focal point.
>>> Quite
>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>>
>>>>>>> few of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> those Russians and Hispanics were there too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2009/8/30 Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I won't push it David, it's not that important, but Paris 
was
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>> focal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> point, I don't see how anyone can argue with that 
really, or
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> even
>>>>>
>>>>>>> why they
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would want to. Spain, Russia, wherever, their eyes 
were on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Paris.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a French thing, it was an international thing, yes, but it 
sat
>>> in
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>> middle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of old empires, except ours.
>>>>>>>>>> Tim A.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Aug 2009, at 14:54, David Bircumshaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's odd, you know, but I was raised in the 
understanding
>>> that
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> important or 'significant' po