Peter, that TLS piece seems positive about Cambridge poetry, unless its
being ironic.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:48:48 +0100, Peter Riley
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>In connection with things recently said here (and in PoetryEtc at the
>same time) it might do people good to look at the "review" by James
>Campbell of The Cambridge literary Journal in TLS 9th October.
>
>This will make it obvious how much more open and generous is the
>attitude of Jane Holland, and many other such people -- Ruth Padel,
>Ronnie Lumsden, Michael Schmidt... -- "liberal" activists of the
>poetry scene, who may not favour extremist forms of writing but would
>encourage interest or curiosity in what's going on in all quarters,
>and would never write or publish anything like Campbell's sneering,
>supercilious, dismissive and willfully hurtful screed, in the tone of
>the public school teacher mocking a failed schoolboy. Not to mention
>almost total inaccuracy and indeed, disregard for truth.
>
>TLS is not "mainstream", it is the literary establishment, a very
>different thing. A decayed and enfeebled institution now commonly
>resorting to Private-Eye-style mockery of any remotely serious and
>adventurous move in literary language.
>
>The TLS review is not on-line but can be read (all of it?) in Robert
>Archambeau's blog (scroll to near the end and hunt around a bit)
>
>
>http://samizdatblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/its-chief-weapon-is-excess-
chris.html#comments
>
>PR
|