Jeff, my complaint about your remark is in some ways similar to Tim's. Apart
perhaps from that post some days back, for whose length I apologized, I
don't think my position really is as entrenched, or even as settled, as you
suppose. Though I don't claim any expertise in the area, quite a few of the
poets on Tim's list I warmly admire (Fisher, Oliver, Harwood, Smith for
starters), others I've read but don't have a strong view on, a few I don't
much care for, and 10 or 11 out of the 23 I must confess to not having read,
or not more than the odd poem. This ignorance might partly bear out Mark's
earlier point about the mainstream's unawareness of the opposite camp; on
the other hand if you were to take a sample of twenty-odd 'mainstream' poets
the outcome for me might not be that different.
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: "The Conspiracy Against Poems" by Adam Fieled at The Argotist
Online
Tim, I was paying attention. It just seems to me that in the particular
exchanges you and Jamie are having, both sides seem to be rehearsing
seasoned arguments.
I’m not saying that the disagreements between mainstream and non-mainstream
poetry will never be resolved in the course of time, I’m just saying they
probably won’t be with you and Jamie in this particular discussion.
I think Peter’s point is far more relevant, but perhaps too controversial
for an open discussion of it here.
Original Message:
Totally disagree with this. One day the thing will be resolved because it
will be history. What concerns me is 'how long' and in what way. I've
already referred to the changes that could, still, help push it that way.
(Why don't people pay attention to what is said in posts, instead of just
concentrating on what is easier to remember. Nobody ever seems to take note
of the qualifiers and the exceptions.)
|