Jamie, there is no need to lay into Tim. It seems that (as far as I can
gather) your knowledge of Wordsworth's copiously published poetic
ideas is slim. This is not your fault, most people are not intimate with
such. If you want a serious discussion on why I say the things I do I am
willing to continue this debate by email.
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:36:58 +0100, Jamie McKendrick
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Tim,
>or should I call you Mr Allen? It seems like I'm not the only
one "getting a
>little cross now". My own knowledge is far from encyclopaedic, and I'm
as
>capable of howlers as the next person, but at least I don't try to
pretend
>they "strengthen my overall position". I don't think I have been "so
>antagonistic and sarcastic" - I confess to some sarcasm in my first
mail,
>but thereafter there's not a trace. I disagreed with a great deal of
Jeff's
>argument and I gave my reasons for that. 'Interest' is perhaps a hard
thing
>to define, but if you're going to wheel in a poet like Baudelaire (or
>Rimbaud and Verlaine) as part of a larger argument that attacks a
group of
>poets, or rather two centuries of British poetry, I think the least you
can
>do is to familiarize yourself with the basic facts. I think the "height of
>arrogance" would attach itself far more to that than anything I've
written.
>My annoyance however was not with the mistake, but with the way of
shrugging
>it off; as well, I admit, with the way Jeff has replied to me personally.
> Unless you want to escalate the antagonisms, and give what you
call "our
>overseas buddies" an even worse view of British poetry, I think it
would be
>worth trying to discuss, without hostility, some of the points you raise
in
>the second part of your mail.
> In the meantime, your next mail has arrived:
>
>>You might not like it jamie, but for as long as the mediocre and dull
are
>>held up by the broadsheet hacks and current Poetry Review critics
as being
>>the best of British while treating the names on cris's list as some
kind
>>of eccentric anomaly, a bit exotic and interesting but not really 'it',
>>then names like Whitman and Dickinson are going to be shunted
around thus.
>>The antipathetic relationship between mainstream British poetry
and the
>>modernisms and post-modernisms is a fact, so stop trying to
pretend
>>otherwise. This antagonism seems to be something particular to the
English
>>speaking world, or far more pronounced and stubborn at least. Why?
>
>Maybe we could start there. I can't promise to come up with any
satisfactory
>answers but I'll try to be honest. First, though, I'm only too aware of
the
>"antipathetic relationship between (what you call) mainstream ...and
the
>modernisms and post-modernisms". So why ask me to"stop trying to
pretend
>otherwise"? Has anything I've written lead you to suppose this?
> I rather doubt that peace is going to break out between these
opposed
>camps but there could be a way of avoiding senseless and futile
antagonism.
> In my responses to Jeff's blog I mentioned a number of C19th poets
(from
>Whitman and Dickinson to Hopkins) - poets I've read, and like
countless
>others, admired since I was at school. My interest in other poets I've
>mentioned (such as Bunting) dates from a few years later. What I fail
to see
>is why this history of poetry should be fenced in as the preserve of
only
>one group of poets - if I've understood your point about "names like
Whitman
>and Dickinson are going to be shunted around thus". Perhaps I haven't
>(understood it).
> I didn't take up Chris's invitation to discuss C20th British poets (nor
>did anyone else) but I'm quite willing to. I suspect my tastes will
diverge
>quite radically from your own and from his - though I can see a
number of
>overlaps. There may even be a number of elements of 'mainstream'
practice
>that bore me quite as much as they bore you.
> Still, since no-one else is going to do it, let me make an attempt
to
>suggest why I think Jeff's idea of the maintream's irredeemable
>"parochialism" is seriously misinformed or prejudiced. I believe you
>yourself, somewhere recently, have depicted the mainstream's
shrunken
>perspectives regarding foreign language poetry in a similar light.
Correct
>me if I'm wrong.
> My impression is that there are a number of figures you would
associate
>with that grouping who have done a great deal more than many of
their
>detractors have to counter and challenge any British parochialism –
just a
>small list to start (let’s keep it to the last 20 years but mainly the
more
>recent) – sorry, no accents here - with Fleur Adcock’s translations of
the
>Romanian poet Grete Tartler, George Szirtes’s of the Hungarian poets
Zsusa
>Rakovsky and Otto Orban and many others, Clive Wilmer’s of Miklos
Radnoti,
>David Harsent’s of the Sarajevan Goran Simic, Michael Hoffmann’s
Durs
>Grunbein [and, forthcoming, Gunter Eich], Stephen Rohmer’s anthology
>translations of many French poets including Valerie Rouzeau, a volume
of
>whose has now been translated by Susan Wicks for Bloodaxe.
Robertson’s
>Transtromer. Paterson’s Antonio Machado and Rilke. Sasha Dugdale’s
Elena
>Schvarts. Tom Paulin’s Road to Inver (which ranges from Apollinaire
and
>Pessoa to Walid Khazendar). This list is just (save two) what I have
on the
>bookshelf behind me and there are undoubtedly a large number of
others to
>add to it. On the organizational level, Sarah Maguire founded and
directs
>the British Translation Centre which has focused on translations from
South
>America, Mexico, India, North Africa and the Middle East by a number
of
>poets commissioned to work with language experts; David
Constantine is one
>of the editors of Modern Poetry in Translation. I could go on. The
picture
>for poetry in translation is often dispiriting - there is far more that
>should be done. It has to struggle with a general disinterest.
Commercially
>(unless it's a well known dead poet) there's not likely to be any
financial
>reward for the press that undertakes it, and even less for the
translator.
>
> This is getting too long. So just briefly on what you call 'Jeff's
>Wordsworth thing'
>>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!
>
>If I've understood you, you're right Wordsworth has never been a
problem for
>me, and in this respect I welcome and endorse the clarity of Peter
Riley's
>post which I've just read. I think it helps not to turn poets into
weapons.
> But perhaps you mean I've been 'lucky' to avoid a proper
investigation of
>my own writing practices by my affiliation with the opposed camp?
>I see that the implied question behind both your mails - why is one
practice
>given practically all of the oxygen of media publicity and the other so
>little - has not really been broached. But what I've written may at
least
>help you not to confuse me "with some whole other person" as Gene
Hackman
>once put it.
>
>Jamie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tim Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:27 PM
>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
Wordsworth?"
>
>
>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
|
