Nah, it’s interesting, L.

I take your point, though. I remember a colleague once gave a public lecture on Yeats or Hardy. He chose hardy for various reasons, including that of morality (!). And I sat there & wondered, how one could dismiss a whole oeuvre so easily. My take: each has written great poems, to whci I return (in my case more to Yeats’s than to Hardy's). It was the huge reach of the statement that boggled me.

So, I can see you choosing to read a few more Wordsworth poems now than before, perhaps, but not necessarily choosing one poet over the other (completely)?

I have a friend who has praised Sisson for hears for his insight, etc. I think he’s mainly on about the essays, but also the poems, again for ‘wit,’ ‘argument,’ etc. That there’s an intellect there worth paying attention to.I can’t say, myself, having not read much of his work, but I accept that for some readers that’s what they like & find interesting in his writing.

But, as you say, re-reading? BB far more than many of the others of his time (there).

I was just listening to Kenneth Goldsmith on CBC talking about his new course, ‘How to Waste Time on the Internet,’ & talking, very intelligently, about the necessity of paying attention to the new modes of communication & finding ways to imaginatively & creatively writing through,out of, into, those forms. I can agree, to an extent (as I really do still love narrative) that in the 21st century we should be creating (or ‘uncreating’) in a manner connected to the techné of today. (While still finding much of his work unreadable, as it is meant, so far as I can see, to be: concept meaning far more than actual text.)

On the other hand, some of the most exciting poetry Ive recently read (& reviewed on my blog) is confronting & utilizing (appropriating?) alllkinds of new textualities…

Just the riffing your comment started…

D
On Nov 20, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It was jokey but I meant it. I looked at the article and found there the
> phrase.
> I could always see the competence but there was innate in it a lot of
> Crow's I am going to keep things as they are. If I quote correctly.
> Apologies if not
> High Modernism is not a phrase I would use.
> I agree with you about Bunting... well, I am not much one for the hit
> parade approach. Who is the very best? Who is the next?
> As it is too early to judge the French Revolution, so...
> Not a good joke, sorry. It probably is a good time. I reflected recently
> upon my quiet contempt for my MA tutor's opinion that Wordsworth led STC.
> 30 years on I think maybe he was right.
> Both of them may have been a pain, though hanging around the Salutation and
> Cat, where Sam used to hide, might have been enjoyable; but I find myself
> reading SOME Wordsworth more than I do Coleridge now. But does it matter.
> But if it's a question of whom I return to of the recents then BB.
> Earlier today  it's getting dark here, I was praising Yeats. But BB
> I'm not sure what I have said though.
> I admit I know very little of Sisson's essays. I rejected the whole
> caboodle deades ago when I rejected the people who sought to promote him to
> me. I have gone back now and then to be sure I was right to do that
> er
> I think I'll shut up
> 
> L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20 November 2014 16:34, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> I know the name more than the writing, I have to admit.
>> 
>> Lawrence, to what was your skepticism directed? I am not sure what the
>> reviewer means by 'high modernism,' & have to always remember that
>> 'modernism' in England apparently meant to most all the writers who ignored
>> what Pound had taught (& so excluded Bunting, to me the true modernist
>> there).
>> 
>> I can imagine enjoying Sisson's wit in his criticism; even admiring some
>> of his poetry (but without seeing in it the formal strategies closest to my
>> writing heart).
>> 
>> Doug
>> On Nov 20, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I have, had
>>> but treated him with great scepticism
>>> 
>>> L
>>> 
>>> On 19 November 2014 21:49, Max Richards <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/18/a-ch-sisson-reader-charlie-louth-patrick-mcguinness-review
>>>> 
>>>> - good to see CHSisson posthumously awarded a selected writings -
>>>> but my guess is that most poetryetcers won't have heard of him till
>> now...
>>>> 
>>>> Max
>>> 
>> 
>> Douglas Barbour
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> Recent publications: (With Sheila E Murphy) Continuations & Continuation 2
>> (UofAPress).
>> Recording Dates (Rubicon Press).
>> 
>> that we are only
>> as we find out we are
>> 
>>        Charles Olson
>> 
> 

Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]

Recent publications: (With Sheila E Murphy) Continuations & Continuation 2 (UofAPress).
Recording Dates (Rubicon Press).

that we are only
as we find out we are

	Charles Olson