Oh bother. No, I wouldn't put names here front channel - too scared of
getting it all wrong and ruining my already ruined reputation from
talking bollocks.
The term post-Language has been used by some, including myself on
occasion, to refer to the various poetics that has come out the other
side of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E etc. This can include both those who were
actually part of that L school in some way and those who have kind of
carried on the project as it has morphed. But the term is problematic
because it cannot refer to any one current poetic - there are various
ones going on, even though none of them would be what they are if it
wasn't for that original daddy. Etc. A bit vague? Personally I really
like some strands, am suspicious of others and don't like some at all
- the Brit-po archive will contain a few scrappy thoughts of mine on
this topic, somewhere - hidden in some wrongly titled tag.
Tim A.
On 15 Apr 2010, at 15:16, John Herbert Cunningham wrote:
> Here we go again, another problem with terms. I like your response,
> Tim, but
> I'm just not sure what you mean by 'post-Language school". Would you
> mind
> expanding on this and perhaps, for my edification, indicate some
> of the
> poets and works that you would include here? Thanks.
|