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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
|