JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Archives


BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Archives

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Archives


BRITISH-IRISH-POETS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Home

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Home

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS  August 2009

BRITISH-IRISH-POETS August 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since Wordsworth?"

From:

Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British & Irish poets <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:35:59 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (237 lines)

Thanks for backing me up Tim. I think Jamie just feels that I am 
attacking him personally when I comment on Heaney (as I am wont to 
do) or Wordsworth, in this instance. I assure him that my criticisms are 
not personal.



On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:27:51 +0100, Tim Allen 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager