If you re-write a poem from 1st century BC to 2018AD  so that it is “for now”  you say or imply what that “now” is, what its tone and content are from where you are, your version of what you inhabit.  and you do it in the changes you make, what you do to the language. . A “classic” text like Virgil or Spenser creates its “now” through history and ideals, Catullus in (+/-) realism, but both of these are translated from there into a different world, our “now”,  which must be present in the new version, as  in any new poetry, in the end. Most of those I reviewed represented their “now" as compared with the classic version, as some kind of stinking pit. And the language of poetry as necessarily damaged.  

I don’t have it in for Tim Atkins. That book is an enormous labour which keeps up a very high pressure of inventiveness. I just can’t read most of it, and I know that a lot of (acclimatised?) people can. I don’t know why everything has to be shattered and language has to be mainly an obstacle to communication And you know I don’t say this from a reactionary position). I think the book is actually best read as 200 pages of poetry, forgetting Petrarch. It then seems to be mainly an enormous scatter of language which is not allowed to develop “content” except in miniature episodes.  In poetry “content” is the same as “story”. So there’s nothing to “follow”.  Like that business of the word “Plant” — even if you get the reference (and I do remember Led Zeppelin  but grew to dislike the constant electronic intensity. My “blues” is some blind pauper sitting on a fence in Mississippi with a broken guitar) — it doesn’t form a story or transmission because the signifying words are not held in a narrative syntax, it’s just three floating nouns/ names.  What was most appealing about Atkins-Petrarch, apart from the verbal humour,  was the presence of a lot of tenderness, which burst through Petrarch’s formalities, but was not always allowed to gain the space needed because of the insistent habit of blocking transmission with what I called “weasel words”, words which destroy the sense of any passage they're in. 

Animalism:  belief in instinct. (?)

cheers, Peter



`

On 19 Mar 2018, at 4:54 pm, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Fascinating article and reviews Peter. I am too ignorant about the original sources of the stuff to argue much, all I can say is I really enjoyed both the Hughes and Halsey books, but they are the only ones I have read fully. I've read quite a few of the Atkins though and heard him read some as well - I enjoyed them though they didn't work for me as well as the Hughes but I have no idea why - either way i don't think it has anything to do with the distance from the original text because I wouldn't know. However a few comments...

I've read the paragraph below many times but I just do not know what you mean by 'the misrepresentation of the world we live in'. Do you really mean that? You really have it in for Atkins don't you. And could you explain what you mean by 'American animalistic' view of the human spirit, as opposed to the European one, whatever it is? 

Also re Michael's pointing out the Led Zeppelin reference in Atkins - I just do not understand what you are saying about it below. You appear to be criticising Atkins for a lack of sense transmission in the same breath as criticising him for making a sense transmission. Is it just because it was a reference that your cultural background would not have picked up on? Same in your review with regard to Amarillo in the Terry, - 'is this the way to Amarillo?’





Cheers

Tim (Allen)