Well, of course, I accept that the monstrous "linguistically innovative"
brand name looks pretty meaningless close up - as meaningless as "Cambridge
Poetry" or "Language Poetry". There is no CP, there is no LP, it is
impossible to characterise some poets, as opposed to others, as innovating
linguistically. On the other hand, as Karlien so eloquently reminds us,
these could just as well be sociological constructs, and that's not
irrelevant. The poetry comes from _somewhere_, even when it is out of
everywhere.
That said, I find it possible to distinguish characteristics in the work of
the various artists of each of these groupings that one might point to. I
often discern prosodic markers (including in the prose) that indicate a CP
lineage. Maybe I'm just imagining this, I don't think so (it's too late at
night and I'm too tired to search for examples right now).
Karlien writes "Is Denise Riley's work women's work? " Yeah, maybe, from
some angles. (I believe Denise also bridles at being called a woman poet.)
It all depends on context. DR's work in _OOE_ means something different
from DR in the Virago Poetry series, or DR bundled with Sinclair and Oliver
in Penguin Modern Poets. I think there is a case for resisting the pull,
now observable in some academic circles, to reclaim DR for the centre
ground of British po(litics)etry. For me, her poetry is fascinating
precisely because it constantly eludes all the pulls. Including the pull of
CP. (Why were D Riley and Mulford omitted from _A Various Art_? Discuss.)
John, I hope your "Bernstein could write for Broadway" was intended as
compliment not put-down.
Ken
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|