Most of that was lifted straight from an introduction to your article  
(by Jeff Side?) which came up accidentally when I was going to your  
article. I just changed the accent.

I've read your article twice and I still don't understand what you're  
worried about, what is the nature and degree of threat that hangs over  
avant-garde poetry -- you yourself admit at the end that it may not be  
a threat at all but actually a help, but your tone shows constant  
worry about by what you call academisation. I can't share the  
assumptions which it's full of, such as your sense of academy as an  
inherently uncreative thing connected with conservatism and  
establishment, any contact with which must be anxiety-making, and I'm  
put off by a lot of bad history (especially on Black Mountain, JH  
Prynne, etc.) and disagree with your taste in poetry almost  
constantly, as you'd expect.  But hey ho, that's what it's like in  
this business isn't it and I wouldn't for a second want to do anything  
to hinder your vocation, I kind of wish you'd just get on with it and  
stop fretting about authorities. And you're quite right about the  
merging of poetry into the academy since Pound's time, but that's six  
of one and half a dozen of the other, is it not?

I only entered this particular thorn-bush because I was worried by the  
very gloomy fears David expressed about the future of poetry (poetry  
itself that is)  as I think it's important to maintain an optimistic  
outlook as much as we can. The fate of avant-garde poetry is something  
I have to leave it to others to worry about.

P


On 6 Apr 2016, at 17:28, Tim Allen wrote:

To be honest Peter i cannot respond to below in any sensible manner. I  
find you impossible. Might feel differently tomorrow but I doubt it.  
The ridiculous hyperbole and mile-wide brush strokes of your feelings/ 
opinions (or whatever they are) leave no room for objective debate.