Thought cris's contribution to the notion of democracy and experimental poetry
very useful. At least one way to take the discussion: that a task for
experimental poetry is to work at a concern for the very notion of democracy
in its roots. And it may take many forms and media shapes. More on this
please.
No one is being accused of cowardice, by the way, Bill, but many thanks for a
generous posting. It's all more a puzzle about how to act best than a
criticism of poets, and certainly not of Eric or of the attempted Poetry
Society reform. I'd just forgotten the House of Lords involvement. Phew!
Alfred Noyes's Highwayman out on another hold-up!
Democracy. Another way forward is to promote a various poetry in many genres
within the body of a single poet's work, some genres highly accessible but
acting as doorways into the more arcane rooms, some more arcane but acting as
doorways into the more accessible areas. That happens to be the way I work,
like a labyrinth. To me, it seems another approach to "democracy"
(theoretically, a speaking to different kinds of people but not a manipulation
or a sell-out) without losing any integrity on the experimental front. I'm
not self advertising here, but it's impossible to contribute to the discussion
without a sense of credo. I hope David wouldn't call it pompous, since it's
just a working programme. (By the way, I'm saying "acceleration" -- Thatcher-
Reagan -- is a form of change.)
Lobbying Oxford would be a useful irritant to those august syndics. But their
reported sales figures for poetry make small press sales (achieved without
orthodox backup of reps, bookshop interest, etc.) look pretty good. And it
seems a good moment to weigh in with support for Chris Emery's publishing
programme, if he can get anything up and going.
Best
Doug
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|