Thanks for clearing that up, Robert.



On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:36:22 +0100, Robert Hampson 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>No - the editorial material for conrtibutors begins by inviting 
>'critical articles on the history, context, close reading and poetics 
>of what has been termed "innovative poetry"' - which would seem to 
fit 
>the title. Colin was quoting from the 'Aims and Scope', which broadens 
>this to include (a) 'critical writing that derives from practice-based 
>research' and (b) 'poetics'. 
>
>The Editorial glances at the problems of the term 'innovative' ... 
>
>And there are articles on O'Sullivan, Prynne, Forrest-Thomson and 
>Denise Riley.
>
>
>
>Robert
>
>
>Jeffrey Side wrote:
>
>
>>I hope you are right Colin. Time will tell. 
>>
>>Their saying that they will look at 'critical writing that derives from 
>>practice-led research and poetics' seems to suggest a limitation in 
>>itself, and not as openly inviting as you think. Does that mean that 
>>critical writing that is non-academic and which is not driven by 
>practice-
>>led research won't get a hearing?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:49:34 +0100, colin herd 
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>I think a lot of these concerns are addressed in the editorial to the 
>>first
>>>issue and come down essentially to whether there should be 
academic 
>>study of
>>>poetry at all. Jeffrey you appear to be suggesting 'no', but I hope 
>'yes'.
>>>(when you say 'no journal' can exist without an agenda, I take 
your 'no
>>>journal' to be the desireable alternative). I find Thurston and 
>>Sheppard's
>>>hopeful assertion 'Academic study of poetry need not 
furnish 'academic'
>>>poetry' pretty convincing, and i am willing to give the journal a 
shot 
>on
>>>those terms. If there should be academic study of poetry, then why 
not
>>>'innovative' poetry?
>>>
>>>Of course the term 'innovative' is inadequate, needs to be 
questioned,
>>>challenged etc. But if there is to be a journal of the kinds of poetry 
>>that
>>>might be critically examined under that name, then I can't think of 
a 
>>more
>>>welcoming/inviting one... It opens itself up to current/future 
>>innovations
>>>that a specific reference to a recent poetic tendency might not. I
>>>understand that it may turn out that this journal becomes 
associated 
>>with a
>>>closed policy, an unwelcoming one, but from the first issue I don't 
see 
>>any
>>>particular reason to assume there won't be room for 
>>various/new/different
>>>interpretations of who innovative poets are.
>>>
>>>Liz's initial problem about non-academically-affiliated writers being
>>>somehow not-'invited' is a bit ungenerous i think, given that the 
>>editors
>>>state that they are proposing to carry ' critical writing that derives 
>from
>>>practice-led research and poetics' alongside academic criticism.
>>>
>>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Jeffrey Side 
<[log in to unmask]> 
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gareth, it’s not about reading or not reading it. The point is 
the
>>>> ramifications the journal will have in the further academisation 
of 
>>poetic
>>>> writing practice, and its influence in deciding who can legitimately
>>>> practice this writing and who can’t.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:39:35 +0100, Gareth Farmer
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Dear All
>>>> >The answer seems simple: don't read the journal if you take 
>>exception
>>>> to it.
>>>> >I'm not particularly fond of *Horse and Hound *but I don't 
waste 
>>my
>>>> time
>>>> >censuring it.
>>>> >
>>>> >Best,
>>>> >Gareth
>>>> >
>>>> >2009/10/20 Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> >
>>>> >> You may be right, Tim. It seems that many younger poets 
now 
>>see
>>>> such
>>>> >> courses as an essential requirement. This no doubt will 
produce
>>>> more
>>>> >> identikit “innovators” with very little independent 
thought and an
>>>> >> increasingly procedural-based approach to poetic composition.
>>>> Although,
>>>> >> I dislike the mainstream, I do admire their amateurism.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:22:32 +0100, Tim Allen
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >I don't really agree with the bit below Jeffrey, although I 
wish I
>>>> >> >did. Younger poets seem to be more and more accepting of 
the
>>>> way
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> >system works. It is not just a matter of them buying into 
the
>>>> system,
>>>> >> >by imagining that you have to go to college and do this 
course 
>>and
>>>> >> >that course before you can be accepted as a poet, it is 
more a
>>>> case of
>>>> >> >them not knowing anything different and never experiencing
>>>> anything
>>>> >> >different. They have been brought up in/with this
>>>> mechanical/career
>>>> >> >orientated view of education so the hoops expected of them
>>>> regarding
>>>> >> >creative arts are no different to any other part of the 
package. 
>>It is
>>>> >> >all a con of course, as 'careers' are as hard to find as ever, 
but
>>>> >> >that tends to actually reinforce the imperative to work 
through 
>>the
>>>> >> >system, as a kind of hopeful insurance or safety net. Yes, 
there
>>>> will
>>>> >> >always be independent spirits, but not enough of them to 
make
>>>> any
>>>> >> >difference to the trend in my view - I certainly don't think 
too 
>>many
>>>> >> >of them will have a 'romanticised' idea of avant-garde 
poetry.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I know that in these discussions there is always the 
problem of
>>>> >> >examples - so here is one - what about Luke Kennard? I am 
>>about
>>>> 90%
>>>> >> >sure that if Luke had not been part of that course he did in 
>>Exeter
>>>> he
>>>> >> >would still be an unknown - not because I think the course 
>>made
>>>> him a
>>>> >> >good poet (I have no way of knowing such a thing) but 
because
>>>> >> without
>>>> >> >that base and influence his work would have come across 
to 
>>the
>>>> usual
>>>> >> >mag editors as just another young man mucking about with
>>>> language
>>>> >> with
>>>> >> >a bit of an attitude.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >I have said before that it is academia which has, to a 
degree, 
>>been
>>>> >> >the saviour of brit innovative poetry - in my interview of 
Robert
>>>> >> >Sheppard in 'Don't Start Me Talking' I think I said it was 
like 
>>being
>>>> >> >given the kiss of life by your worst enemy.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Cheers
>>>> >> >Tim A.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >On 19 Oct 2009, at 19:57, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>  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,
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>