Curiously, I don't remember saying anything like that. I thought I was
talking about American poets' attitudes to British poetry,
conventional or innovative, which with exceptions I have found
consistently negative for the last 40 years. This was very noticeable
in the running of the Cambridge Conference of Contemporary Poetry for
instance. Our enthusiasm for the new American poetry knew no bounds
but was clearly not reciprocated.
I suggest we not start a discussion as to whether the "experimental"
can claim the "left field" as its own.
PR
On 20 Oct 2016, at 11:00, Tim Allen wrote:
Yes to that Jaime, but at least arguing over Shakespeare is harmless,
I think. For me I'd rather walk the dog but would gladly sit back and
be entertained by a TV programme about it.
Just want to remind you American folks that Peter's views are his
alone and that his negative opinions about some Brit left-field poetry
are just as forceful, only he kind of blames Americans for that too,
for tempting people like me away with your 'novelty'. I always found
much more to like in C20 American poetry than British until around
2000 when it somehow tipped the other way. My influences are mainly
French anyway.
Cheers
Tim
|