I think you are being slightly idealistic here, Elizabeth.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:16:45 +0100, Elizabeth James
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hello
>
>I think there are logical errors in most of the objections raised. Just
>because academics decide to talk about something doesn't mean they
can or
>desire to lay claim to it. Most literature is already studied
academically
>without any particular impact on its other audiences. An even better
example
>probably is film studies.
>
>As for the possibility that young people will be bored by the poetry
>currently thought of as innovative when it becomes academically
>recognised -- well, that's OK isn't it? they need to move on in the
>antipathetic cycle, make their own innovations ...
>
>Elizabeth
>
>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>>It seems to me, that this growing trend towards gaining academic
>legitimacy for innovative poetry, is partly based on a sense of
inferiority
>that without it such poetry will continue to be seen as “not quiet up to
>scratch” in the more conservative halls of academia. But such a panic-
>stricken attitude, is, I believe, a mistake, as it will only cause
>innovative poetry to be seen as a practice and topic of discussion that
>is only open to those within academia. This not only will be bad for
>such poetry from a public relations point of view (and it has quite a
>poor PR standing amongst the general public as it is) but it will cause
a
>backlash against it, with younger poets who have a more romanticised
>idea of what avant-garde poetry is, and how it is written and
>disseminated, forming antipathetic groups and schools. And does this
>sort of poetry really need more factions representing it?
|