I don't know how anyone can know that "the present is not inclined
rightly". That strikes me as at best a hypothesis, and anyway void of
meaning without a definition of boundaries. The present, for heavens sake,
extends absolutely everywhere.

I don't know of anything in the history of the poetry which could be called
Private, indeed by definition I can't know such a thing, or it wouldn't be
in the history of poetry.

That Truth should bear a close relation to Totality is one thing, that it
should bear a very close relation to Wholeness is another, and one which I
would greatly prefer, since Wholeness is knowable, and Totality isn't.
Does this expose the Platonic basis of CamPo? (CamPo is OK, by the way,
but I prefer Popsicles ).

Surely the self is in a very important sense all you have, as Wyndham Lewis
said, it is your bird in the hand, it is finally your only medium of
authentification of percepts. I have a feeling I have said this before in
this group, several times.

Institutions can be privatized, language can't. If the language of poetry
stays within a given field of delineation of personal experience that
doesn't necessarily mean that it is ideological or exclusive in purport and
certainly not that it is privatized. The new Guardian Review of JH Prynne's
poems points out that the lyrical mode (whatever is meant by that) is
denied because it "omits so much" But of course you omit so much, how can
you not constantly and irrevocably omit almost everything? How can the
definition of good be tied to inclusion? Is this poetry we're talking about
or some synthesised world encyclopaedia? If one person falls over in the
street you pick up one person, not the entire population. Is that such a
terrible thing?

I really don't think the explanations brought forth so far are sufficient
to explain the pecularly stifling and irritating boredom that emanates from
Mr Andrews' word columns. Lots of things are boring, but to be as boring as
this is quite unusual and there must be very special reasons. If it were
actually harmful as Keston implies (through irresponsibility) it would be
more interesting in a negative way. It's actually totally dead, by design,
and will only show vampyric signs of life when various readers prod it.
Has anyone considered that it's principal malfunction is formal?-- that
word columns are per se stiflingly boring? There could be reasons for
that.


However, I'm really looking forward to the next stage of this discussion
because "pain's" (why in the world does someone choose to call him/herself
"pain"?) questions are very carefully and intelligently put, and are
questions which have been asked again and again, and which deserve an
answer, and have never yet got one. They can't be just brushed aside.
Come on now you growlers: justify these wierd practices point by point as
demanded and do it smartly.


/PR




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