On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:10:54 +0100 (BST), Kona wrote:
>Is (possibly radical) innovation a virtue
>in itself, for its own sake? Perhaps I reckon all decent poems are in
>some non-trivial sense acts of innovation, or it wouldn't be so bloody
>difficult to write 'em :-)
- first, complete agreement with Doug in his no-quarrel-with-writers-
of-any-persuasion-providing-they're-not-peevish-about-it post. Also,
in his estimation of the general way in which exclusionary tactics
work within the arts bureaucracy as it exists at present.
That's one reason I set this list up with a specified focus and intent
towards "innovative" poetries: because mailbase potentially offered a
space for such poetries to meet which couldn't exist in the normal
arts structure in UK, and because, as I saw it, there was a need for
more dialogue between people with interests in this area, and more
dissemination of information about it. Behind that is my own personal
excitement at the range and achievement of UK/Irish innovatives, and
my regret that more isn't known about them. There are, of course,
innovative writers within the perceived "mainstream" of course (Roy
Fisher, frinstance) - but on whe whole, they operate - of necessity -
outside that field.
So yes, I agree that all decent poems have an element of innovation in
'em, at least in the intent of the writer, and a poem without some
element of pushing-on-boundaries is of little or no interest to me. As
to "virtue"... the kind of innovations of which I speak would be
innovations towards a purpose, not for their own sake.
Recently on this list Lawrence Upton took a bit of stick for some
comments about Wendy Cope: let's briefly take those two authors as
examples from something like opposite ends of a notional spectrum.
First, I think WC would be most surprised if anyone called her work
"innovative" - and probably alarmed if she got other than brickbats
from a list such as this. She's made her choice, isn't, as far as I
can tell, too peevish about it, so on she goes. I don't get much from
her work, which seems undemanding and totally sealed, terms she may
take to be praise. Next, LU - spare your blushes, Lawrence! Sometimes
I admit I don't "get" what LU's up to, sometimes I'm not "in
agreement" with aspects of it. But ALWAYS his work challenges the way
I listen / read, and there's normally something there I can get a buzz
out of, feel excited about. Something which upsets my perceptions,
which attempts to make something where there wasn't anything before.
That's valuable, or seems so to me.
Can we not have the old conversation about whether the "mainstream"
exixts or not again, please? We did it considerably some while back.
In general terms, tho its boundaries be fluid, as you'd expect from a
stream, it's so self-evident as to require little explanation. These
are broad terms...
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|