Tim, yes, it all depends on how one defines “mainstream”. I no longer really know what that word refers to in relation to poetry. For years, I was almost dogmatic in my understanding of the word as it relates to poetry. Does the word relate to: a way of writing, use of language, political stance, popularity, acceptence by commercial poetry publishers and the literary media etc.? It is all very confusing.
The A. C. Evans "situation" compounds this confusion. His criticisms of postmodern literary theory are similar to many of those who support “the status quo” in poetry, yet his general attitude and approach to poetry is iconoclastic — it seems to me. Maybe he is an “anomaly” who is best left out of consideration, as to do so complicates already complicated matters.
From: Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: British & Irish poets <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:54:21 +0000
Yes interesting last sentence below Jeffrey, which sums it up really. I can't speak for others but I know that Henri disappointed me in his later years - he didn't develop his poetry and it lost some of its spark. I only heard him once and it was a pretty dull affair, sad to say. So I can see how for many of the avant crowd he became even more of an irrelevance. But they had probably stopped paying attention by then anyway. But this 'mainstream' thing always depends on what criteria and areas we are talking about - is everything published by a generally mainstream publisher therefore mainstream? - the answer is surely no. Some peoples' definition of mainstream is very close to their same definition of establishment - the self-feeding circle of poets publishers critics etc, while mine is more to do with the work itself. It's the same problem with the word 'popular'. Despite the lessons of postmodernism I know there are people around who still automatically think that anything that is popular must be inferior, which again, I think is nonsense, even if at any one time it might be the case.
Cheers
Tim
|