I appreciate John Cayley's note re the establishment/avant-garde though
believe both should be written with capitals.
I also read on the South Bank programme this year (with Ciaran Carson) and
am not often described as being part of an Establishment. This has
as much to do with "voice" as methodology. In fact, JC and I had a
discussion a short while ago at a Subvoicive reading re how it came to be
that people like myself, Lopez, and SR were on the programme. Well, I
suppose in my case it depends "which aspect" of my work you look at.
Divisions are absurd. Formalist devices can be used ironically so the
divisions become meaningless. Get inside and dismantle I say.
I often read at "mainstream" venues - both here and elsewhere in the
world. "Static" readings of language - ie as something bound to
intention or integrity - reduce the ability for words to have meanings
outside the text, beyond intention.
For me, the ideal is Wordsworth read in conjunction with Prynne -
far more comparable than one would (like to?) think! Or maybe reading
Christopher Middleton on the train... in the caboose... In Australia
conservative critics say that my "experimental" work (e.g. Erratum/
Frame(d)) "lacks charm" but believe something like The Silo has it (?):
prescriptive modes of reading - missing the point - which is my point in
the context of this discussion.
For what it's worth, the venue was full.
Yours
John Kinsella
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|