OK, time and time again the problem of what to call certain types of poetry, as far as groupings is concerned, crashes against the buffers. And it doesn't seem to count that time and time again when people like me use such words while openly admitting that the terms are provisional and inadequate throats still get jumped down. It's consistently maddening.
The main terms are - Experimental. Avant-Garde. Post-Modern. Linguistically Innovative. Sometimes even vaguer terms are used such as Alternative or Non-Mainstream. Then of course the dreaded Language Poetry term, then of course Post-Language, a name I use quite a bit to designate certain poetry coming out of the US. I have used all these terms in different contexts while never fully comfortable or confident. The exceptions I suppose are those that are purposely published under a certain term, like the Language Poets for that limited period, or currently Conceptual poets etc.
For me the most iffy terms have always been 'experimental' and 'avant-garde', for obvious reasons, whereas the term 'linguistically innovative', despite it's problems, I find less problematic. The term 'post-modern' is a so-in-so because the word is used differently in different contexts, generally used differently in the US for one thing. Oh and there is another term covering certain poets at a certain time - 'the Poetry Revival'.
It is quite obvious that for such a large group of poets writing over such a long period the terms are going to be very fluid, there being no single term to cover them. But would it even be possible to use the terms with a bit more accuracy?
When discussing poetry in a certain way, contextualising and comparing etc, we have to have usable terms.
Cheers
Tim
|