Jim,

If the listserv admin will do this for me that would be ok. I haven't the 
technical savvy to do it myself.


On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:02:12 +0000, JIMMY CUMMINS 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Jefferary / jeffy / Jeffers
not sure if this will work but there seems to be a a file area as part of 
the Jiscmail service.https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?
LMGT1=BRITISH-IRISH-POETS maybe it might be possible for one of the 
list managers to upload some stuff there and anyone who is interested 
can download it. 
I personal think this conversation should continue away from the 
confines of articles/journals/ peer review this that or the other
I have been enjoying the back and forth.

best
Jim/Jimi/Jimmy/Jamie/James

 www.defaultpublishing.com
http://defaultpoetry.blogspot.com/
"DE-FAULT, the two best words in the English language"




________________________________
From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, 27 August, 2009 4:45:19 PM
Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since Wordsworth?"

Chris, I tried to attach a chapter from my PhD thesis but was unable to 
do so. This was the reason why:

"Your posting  to the BRITISH-IRISH-POETS  list has been rejected  
because it contains an attachment of type 'APPLICATION/MSWORD'. 
The BRITISH-IRISH-POETS list has been configured to reject such 
attachments. Please contact the list owner at BRITISH-IRISH-POETS-
[log in to unmask] for more information."

The chapter addresses all the questions raised and is fully referenced  
with copious examples form Wordsworth's poetry. This is an intro 
chapter  and can be read separately from the other chapters which are 
more intricately connected. This is a very convoluted topic and I can't 
argue the case in soundbites.

I had the viva voce two years ago, and the thesis passed. One article 
adapted from a chapter from it has been accepted for publication by a 
peer-reviewed journal subject to minor stylistic changes, and other 
articles drawn from the thesis are under review with other peer-
reviewed journals.


On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:01:54 -0400, cris cheek 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>break it up a bit
>
>give us the drip feed
>
>re-edit for this space
>
>you an interested audience
>
>it would be great to read some substantial debate
>
>rather than using the public list to point to a more privet-fence  sphere
>
>;-)
>
>
>here
>
>here
>
>
>
>as if
>
>so far
>
>xx
>
>
>
>
>cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Aug 27, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>
>> It may be unreasonable but it's the case. If those who want a fuller
>> explanation want to recieve my various writing on this by email
>> attachemnt then they are welcome. I simply can't load chapters and
>> articles here.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:50:51 -0400, Mark Weiss
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll second Cris on this. It's unreasonable to
>>> tell people "if you'd only drop everything else
>>> in your life and  read my complete works I'm sure
>>> you'd understand."  A single poem or passage,
>>> with a discussion of its debt to Wordsworth,
>>> might make it possible to understand what you're
>>> about. Absent this, you seem to be saying that
>>> almost all of British poetry after Wordsworth
>>> imitates his practice of describing the visual
>>> and does so because of his prestige.
>>>
>>> Whether or not this is accurate (I'm willing to
>>> be convinced, but give us a detail or two), I
>>> don't think it adequately describes Wordsworth's
>>> practice pre-1809 (the only Wordsworth that
>>> matters, I think, to most of us). He's at least
>>> as interested in psychology, especially the
>>> psychology of perception and memory, as he is in
>>> description for its own sake.  In much of his work
>>> from the period there's a sense of
>>> poet-as-scientist, where description is gathered
>>> as evidence. Here's a very early poem of his.
>>>
>>>
>>> We Are Seven
>>>
>>> A simple child,
>>> That lightly draws its breath,
>>> And feels its life in every limb,
>>> What should it know of death?
>>>
>>> I met a little cottage girl:
>>> She was eight years old, she said;
>>> Her hair was thick with many a curl
>>> That clustered round her head.
>>>
>>> She had a rustic, woodland air,
>>> And she was wildly clad;
>>> Her eyes were fair, and very fair;
>>> Her beauty made me glad.
>>>
>>> "Sisters and brothers, little maid,
>>> How many may you  be?"
>>> "How many? Seven in all," she said,
>>> And wondering looked at me.
>>>
>>> "And where are they? I pray you tell."
>>> She answered, "Seven are we;
>>> And two of us at Conway dwell,
>>> And two are gone to sea.
>>>
>>> "Two of us in the churchyard lie,
>>> My sister and my brother;
>>> And in the churchyard cottage, I
>>> Dwell near them with my mother."
>>>
>>> "You say that two at Conway dwell,
>>> And two are gone to sea,
>>> Yet ye are seven!  I pray you tell,
>>> Sweet maid, how this may be."
>>>
>>> Then did the little maid reply,
>>> "Seven boys and girls are we;
>>> Two of us in the churchyard lie,
>>> Beneath the churchyard tree."
>>>
>>> "You run  about, my little maid,
>>> Your limbs they are alive;
>>> If two are in the churchyard laid,
>>> Then ye are only five."
>>>
>>> "Their graves are green, they may be seen,"
>>> The little maid replied,
>>> "Twelve steps or more from my mother's door,
>>> And they are side by side.
>>>
>>> "My stockings there I often knit,
>>> My kerchief there I hem;
>>> And there upon the ground I sit,
>>> And sing a song to them.
>>>
>>> "And often after sunset, sir,
>>> When it is light and fair,
>>> I take my little porringer,
>>> And eat my supper there.
>>>
>>> "The first that died was sister Jane;
>>> In bed she moaning lay,
>>> Till God released her of her pain;
>>> And then she went  away.
>>>
>>> "So in the churchyard she was laid;
>>> And, when the grass was dry,
>>> Together round her grave we played,
>>> My brother John and I.
>>>
>>> "And when the ground was white with snow,
>>> And I could run and slide,
>>> My brother John was forced to go,
>>> And he lies by her side."
>>>
>>> "How many are you, then," said I,
>>> "If they two are in heaven?"
>>> Quick was the little maid's reply,
>>> "O master! we are seven."
>>>
>>> "But they are dead; those two are dead!
>>> Their spirits are in heaven!"
>>> 'T was throwing words away; for still
>>> The little maid would have her will,
>>> And say, "Nay, we are seven!"
>>>
>>>
>>> At 09:33 AM 8/27/2009,  you wrote:
>>>> name names and cite actual passages
>>>>
>>>> please
>>>>
>>>> i agree with Peter. Unless we get into details here there is no
>>>> possibility of further interest.
>>>>
>>>> put some actual poetry into this discussion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> as if
>>>>
>>>> so far
>>>>
>>>> xx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wordsworth's  influence comes out of his poetic theory which
>> favours a
>>>>> descriptive accuracy. UK mainstream poetry have been like this 
for
>>>>> years--ask anyone. Ok, maybe not so much now as the 
mainstream
>> may
>>>>> have taken on-board some avant-garde notions albeit watered
>> down.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:55:45 +0100, Peter Riley
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you see this influence? Can you give an example of 
it?
>> The
>>>>>> only place I thought I saw it recently was in Dart by Alice
>>>>>> Oswald,
>>>>>> where I thought it had a  beneficial effect. Indeed long-term 
(100-
>>>>>> years) influence could be more likely to liven things up than
>>>>>> imitation of last year's prize-winners, as a general rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that Wordsworth is highly revered by poets such as 
J.H.
>> Prynne
>>>>>> and Keston Sutherland and presumably this will have some 
result
>> in
>>>>>> their work, though it would be difficult to put a finger on it,
>>>>>> certainly not in their recent work (though parts of The Oval
>> Window
>>>>>> maybe...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was Shakespeare's plays, translated into French, which so 
much
>>>>>> excited the French poets, and musicians too, especially 
Berlioz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26 Aug 2009, at 18:31, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter, no one is saying that Wordsworth should not be 
admired.
>> My
>>>>>> point is that his influence has prevailed in UK poetry long
>>>>>> past its
>>>>>> sell
>>>>>> by date. I don't jink much of shakespeare's sonnets by the 
way--
>> great
>>>>>> though he was as a playwright.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:01:31 +0100, Peter Riley
>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As one of the poets mentioned on Marks' list (thanks kindly,
>> Mark)
>>>>> I'd
>>>>>>> like to mention that Wordsworth has always been an 
inspiring
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>> And so has Thomas Hardy. And that neither of them has
>> anything to
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> with the (actually extremely varied and in some quarters 
quite
>>>>>>> healthy) poetry which gets labelled "mainstream". It was 
Donald
>>>>> Davie
>>>>>>> who was mainly responsible for the Hardy--Larkin link, as he
>> was for
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> lot of other misleading pronouncements at a time when  the
>>>>> Cambridge
>>>>>>> academy was forcing its way into the contemporary poetry
>> scene as
>>>>>>> adjudicators. It's like Eliot's silly attack on Milton and
>>>>>>> Pound's
>>>>>>> silly attack on just about everybody -- an academic 
obsession
>> with
>>>>>>> genealogies which has little to do with how poetry gets 
written.
>>>>> The
>>>>>>> historical occasion is built into the writing of someone like 
WW
>> and
>>>>>>> there are questions of authenticity which cut it off from its
>>>>>>> "influence" .  Recent writing about him from Cambridge could
>> not be
>>>>>>> accused of promoting philosophical  empiricism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can get rid of all 20th Century English (not British)
>>>>>>> poetry if
>>>>>>> you want to ---we did in Cambridge in the 1960s, -- if you 
want
>> to
>>>>>>> write in a certain way you construct a tradition for yourself,
>>>>>>> tho I
>>>>>>> don't think it actually helps. And of course it comes back, it
>>>>>>> has to,
>>>>>>> you realise that you're deliberately blinkering yourself for the
>>>>>>> sake
>>>>>>> of some poetico-ideology. I should have thought the time for
>> that
>>>>> kind
>>>>>>> of exercise was long past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And  incidentally, as regards a certain kind of poetical 
texture
>> and
>>>>>>> figurative freedom among the French "symbolistes" passing 
on to
>>>>>>> America and all that, I think that if you get the full historical
>>>>>>> perspective on this, you find that what it ultimately derives
>>>>>>> from is
>>>>>>> England, in the form of Shakespeare (as against Racine 
etc.).
>> France
>>>>>>> had a very rigid inheritance of what we call Augustanism, 
and an
>>>>>>> Academy to enforce it, and Shakes was  one of the great
>> liberators
>>>>>>> from that for the early 19th century poets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for innarestin chat,  everyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26 Aug 2009, at 14:49, Tim Allen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim A.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26 Aug 2009, at 14:00, Jamie Mckendrick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Baudelaire as a poet - and even the history of his 
reception -
>>>>>>>> interests me
>>>>>>>> intensely, and I don't like to see him, or for that matter
>>>>>>>> Wordsworth,  Whitman
>>>>>>>> and Dickinson, shunted around like pawns in a specious
>> manouvre
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> vilify
>>>>>>>> contemporary British poetry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>