Thanks to Doug Oliver for an astute and compassionate post, the sense of
which I agree with wholeheartedly. Doug's own work exemplifies these
principles to an extent I have yet to comprehend fully, let alone match in
my own poems (as does Prynne's, of course. What better informed
reaction to the gulf war of 1990-91 than Her Weasels Wild Returning?).
Stephen, no word on this (recursive) allegation that Cambridge poets rely
on theory? Which theories? David -- you seem to agree, perhaps you could
answer this question for us? Otherwise the arid raid on vitality which
you fancy in all things theoretic, must remain a fancy merely. And that
would be a shame.
Thing is about pluralism, it is so perfectly acceptable (here) that to
advocate its purposes is never -here- to fashion any new prospect for
thinking. As I have hinted before, I believe in the function of excessive
public argument; there is of course a dialectic of irony at work in this
belief, and in these arguments themselves. I wonder has anyone ever read
Gillian Rose's _The Melancholy Science_?
So Peter and Ric when you say, wouldn't it be dull if we all wrote after
some unalterable fashion, surely your question is so rhetorical that it
must have no effect of encouragement or discouragement? Perhaps others
disagree?
I prefer -effective- posts to -candid- posts.
Better run, but much to return to -- have a good w/e all, k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|