Thanks for posting that address Nate --
On the Prynne review: I believe it is a serious mistake to say, as his
reviewer does, that Prynne is a Marxist. Prynne's work has developed
across a series of voracious insight, and could be thought to have shifted
politically; but early on he was very explicitly un- or even anti-Marxist.
The difference between Prynne's and Marx's materialism is manifold, but
one thing stands out, perhaps, most clearly: Prynne directly exhorts us
not to accept the idea that an improved society should be the result of
historic development in class relations. The very concept of progress is
recast as the negative term in the politics of thinking about time; it is
the 'backflow' that is to be wished and thought for.
I think it's worth making this point because Prynne's poetry is perhaps
the most -philosophical- that has been written. A contentious remark no
doubt. Certainly it is more properly so than (eg) Coleridge's, or maybe
even than Heidegger's. But certainly it would never offer an account of
itself as 'superstructural'; though frequently the trope of such an
account is fixed on or passed over.
Does anyone agree with Ramez Qureshi, that Prynne -is- a Marxist? I would
be very interested to hear this position explained.
Also I think it's misleading and unhelpful of Qureshi to associate the
terms of his argument with writers like Jameson, and to conclude by
suggesting that Prynne is continuing a Poundian project of innovation.
These are less hazardous remarks, though.
still: it's very pleasing to see the work getting the attention it
deserves.
Nate -- could you expand a little on the reasons why you disagree with the
content or style of these reviews (this one and the one of Andrea's book)?
k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|