Peter,
Which of these two would you categorize the nature poetry of Antler
(Wisconsin, USA)?
Perhaps there are more than two...
Brett Axel
> Forwarded message:
> From: Self <SAMSON/LYAAZ>
> To: "Lawrence Upton." <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re:Nature Poetry
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:17:22 GMT0BST
>
> Hi Lawrence,
> I just wanted to say thanks really for your report on Colin Simms,
> rather than start a thread of argument - some demur is one way of
> making a thank you substantial!
> Well you're right in what you say (we're in it, it's everything
> anyway etc) but a bit too right. Perhaps there are two schools (at
> least) of nature poetry: one would be an immersive, processual one
> (nature a as self-consuming, self-transforming, self-recoiling vortex
> ((a splendid example of this is Paul Green's A Thousand Butterflies));
> (and this would also include ideas like "humanature" etc); another,
> which I favour more, is to address nature as horizon, as a habit of
> attention, as a companiable difference rather than an infinitizable
> difference: this is the work of relationship which nature calls from
> us, rather than an attempt at creating an equivalent for nature as
> (self-inclusive) process. My preference is the less radical one, but
> it's a way of showing that nature poetry can't be everything to
> itself: if it's a part of everything it isn't actually addressing (or
> dedicating itself to) that everything which is a substrate "less"
> than ourselves but closer to ourselves than we are.
> Best W
> Peter
> PS I'll also post this to british-poets as you suggestPeter Larkin
> Philosophy & Literature Librarian
> University of Warwick Library
> Coventry CV4 7AL UK
> Tel: 01203 528151 Fax: 01203 524211
> Email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|