Jeff,
Thanks. I appreciate this apology and accept it.
And I'm very grateful to Tim for his message.
(I think the smiley faces would be a disaster though. Apart from their
banality, they're as open to misinterpretation and misuse as language is,
and infinitely less flexible.)
"Unintentionable slights" and mistaken interpretations of tone and meaning
are bound to bug this medium. And I'm sure they'll have occurred on this
list many times before. They're annoying but can be resolved if the
disputants listen carefully to each other.
What has made me angry is not especially your remark about my response to
Tim's question (though that too). It's that when I've explained to you where
misunderstandings have occurred with a view to removing them, you have kept
doubting my word. Apart from the offence of this, it means nothing ever gets
cleared up, and the accused is left in a futile circle of further
clarifications, those too offensively called into doubt, and the debate
grinds to a halt.
I have also found myself galled by the increasingly personalized nature of
your mails to me ("quibbling", "insinuating", "disingenuous" etc.)
especially when, as I think you should be able to see if you go over my
posts in this dispute, I've made no personal remarks about you. We can
disagree "radically" - the word is innocent of any malice - without the need
for jibes and slurs.
Sure - we have "history", but there's no reason why that shouldn't be
changed.
You've defended your position against a whole series of attacks, mine
included, and for the most part with proper argument. I might not be
convinced by the argument (I have signalled, though, some points of
agreement) but I've tried to keep to the issues. I'm impressed even by the
doggedness of your defence. You don't need to use these wind-ups and baser
tactics.
I'm not looking for further apologies. But I'd suggest you don't call my
honesty into question any further and try to read my mails with more care.
Best wishes,
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since Wordsworth?"
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
|