Peter,
I have to say a similar thing to you here as I have to Jeffrey. For
heaven's sake, I completely agree with what you say below. I know full
well that the 'mainstream' is not all of one. I've talked elsewhere
about this change in the breadth of mainstream poetry through the
00's, and yes, in relation to this I have mentioned Oswald and
Paterson. And of course there are poets who's designation by the
mainstream as not being 'one of them' has always been difficult to
fathom logically (though not tribally etc). I've talked before about
this in relation to Lee Harwood for example, and Doug Oliver - just
two examples (oh and of course, Roy Fisher) - there are plenty of
others. It just so happens that in this case, in this thread, I was
talking about a particular quality (or anti-quality) that has been
very important for a whole mass, of a certain type, of mainstream
poems. And this is something you are clearly aware of too. And yes, of
course there are younger poets who cannot be defined by these
categories, - I would agree, Zoe and Nathan are excellent examples.
But........
(always a but) .... but I could give you an explanation as to why the
brilliant poetry, for example, of Lee Harwood and Roy Fisher has been
so neglected by the centre in favour of its own thin product. Or, are
there no reasons for this, is it just chance? Of course there are
REASONS. Why is it that attempts to talk about those reasons gets such
shifty responses? From both sides!
Cheers
Tim A.
On 9 Sep 2010, at 19:20, Peter Riley wrote:
> As to the other matter, that mainstream has a different philosophy
> of writing because of its adherence to "subject" and "transparency",
> I think that's only diagrammatically true. I mean it's true in
> principle as a dichotomisation which is part of the definition of
> modernism, more in criticism than in poems, and it's true at the
> (fortunately quite few) far extremes. But there are so many
> exceptions and ifs and buts that I don't think it can be used to
> maintain the existence of a total divide in English language poetry.
> It's not, for instance, true of Alice Oswald, or Pauline Stainer,
> it's not consistently true of Don Paterson or Roy Fisher or even
> Seamus Heaney (whose "subject" can phase into "occasion"). But it
> surely is true of Thomas A. ClarkBritish. And I keep seeing the work
> of younger poets who just can't be defined by these categories --
> Sasha Aurora Ahkat, Zoe Skoulding, Nathan Thompson...
|