So,

1.       Rupert Loydell's comment about the esoteric etc on the list
strikes me as being the wrong way round: there are too many postings (for
me) about wolves in the undergrowth & not enough about the actual business
of poetry & poets.

In a conversation this summer with Tim Davis, Miles Champion said that he
felt the problem with (some) English writing was the failure to take on any
of the theory surrounding poetry that has been thrown up in the last 30
years (I hope I don't misquote!): (Tim said that in The States, he felt
that the problem was that too many people read it).

It seems to me that a particular problem of recent English writing has been
its inability to mix the rigors of popular culture with the ebullience (&
joys) of critical theory - & vice versa.  (The only time people drop their
guard at readings is when they talk about Slits singles). In English
writing it always seems to be one thing or the other.

The list - with a very disparate membership & agenda, of course - is most
interesting to me when it is engaging with poetry with all the tools
available to it: poetry, new or otherwise, can't exist in a critical
vacuum.


2.      I'd like to be able to say that I don't like particular poetries &
be engaged as to why I do/don't.  I'd much rather have a bit of feisty to &
fro on the list rather than be greeted with pomposity or outrage (such as
greeted the whole Orpheus thing in the spring) or indifference when
opinions are expressed.
(See #3)


For me, at least, I'm not interested in at least half of what goes on on
the list, but am glad it goes on: I think (hope) that what is read as being
the absolute bottom line of this message is respect for whatever anyone
chooses to do (or even not to do).

And equal respect for saying (why) that some of it (for me) is crap.  & how
those 2 polarities interact.

3.      This opens up the whole tin of worms of how to debate poetry
without being either offensive or dull.  I've never met a writer who
(without the aid of stimulants, even) does not have a whole shitload of
opinions about everything under the sun.  "Eric Mottram was a terrible
reader & writer" is one I'd like to venture here.  Going by the level of
debate on the list, it seems that we are all in agreement that everything
is okay; the only exception to this was the Prynne vs Tom Raworth debate,
which made me read Prynne differently.  All power to the Eric acolytes, of
course, but I'd like someone to tell me why (how?) he's a great poet, for
example.  (The fact that he was a very nice man & very important promoter
of poets being here irrelevant).  I'm always up for a change of mind or
critical exchange.

cris cheek enthused magnificently about Bob Cobbing at John Cayley's house
a few weeks ago, & I'd like to see more of that passion on the list.  Most
of my poetry opinions have been formed by (reading &) debate, and anyone
who knows me will also know how quickly they change.  There seems to be
very little Negative Capability on the list.  It seems to me that people
get into their ghettos & stay there.

In a world where poetry is generally ignored, it's natural to need to form
allegiances, etc, but I also think that the greatest breakthroughs in
writing this century (in Paris in the early part of the century, in NY in
the post-war period, & SF in the last 2 decades) took place when there was
a lot more in the air up for debate.

This leads back to being desirous of disagreement & cross-pollination, &
excitement at having a reading series frequented by as many visual artists
& architects as poets.  This is exciting - of course - & natural - that (as
Miles said in his posting) in creating / finding an audience we are also
creating an atmosphere where such works will be generated / received. It's
also good because such diversity can only help generate new poetries etc.
Caroline Bergvall is doing great work at Dartington.  I wonder how Karlein
& Lucy feel about their excellent project(s) - & their effects - in
Cambridge.

4.      My feeling as a reader of most of this list, most of the time, is
that I see very little pleasure expressed concerning our engagement with
what this list is (perhaps) supposed to be about.  In conversations with
contemporaries most of out time is spent either enthusing about (or
complaining about) the works of whoever we are reading.  I'm currently
enthusing & debating about Clark Coolidge's Book of During with Ira
Lightman, & am very pleasurably batting Bruce Andrews (& everything else)
around with Mr Champion.  Perhaps these things are best kept as private
pleasures ?  Is anyone out there reading & enjoying (or hating) anything?
I think we should be told.

5.      I'd also like to reiterate John Cayley's (april?) suggestion of
having a monthly editor of works submitted & subsequent postings of those
works.  (In a digest, perhaps?)


6.      Finally, I don't know if any list can function as more than a
talking shop for talkative people (which I'm not, particularly) or as an
advertising site.  I personally find the advertising side of it (often)
more interesting / informative, but, as I say, that's my trip.  I do hope
that these points are more or less clear:  I hope that if they piss people
off they stimulate them to respond.  I like the list as it is but I'd like
it to be different too.  I hope that people come to see Mr Perelman at the
Serpentine Bookshop in December (& read his fine book "The Marginalization
of Poetry").  I hope that it stops raining so that I can go out & fix my
van.

Woof woof, etc,

Tim Atkins, Balham, Saturday, 1000 words.


-----------------------------------------

WE DISAGREED ALL THE TIME, WE WERE FUNDAMENTALLY QUITE DIFFERENT,
BUT WE WERE IN IT TOGETHER

RON PADGETT / TED




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%