The
> "authority" behind these recent CCCP postings says everything about
> alternative canons - the embarrassment, I'm afraid, is not to be found in
> Robert Adamson's reading but the limited range of some of the audience.
Just surfacing from the depths of lurkerdom to take a breath....
I don't see that there's anything wrong with saying you don't like what a
particular poet is doing, or you have reservations about their poetics, or
you're embarrassed by their performance PROVIDED you're upfront about it
and explain your reasons to those interested.
I am among those who have criticised CCCP in the past for its aura of
exclusivity - while applauding its choice of poets, on the whole. And I
certainly dislike the mindset that condemns chunks of poetry production
wholesale: eg, "I hate Language Poetry, I've never read any, but I once
read something Ron Silliman said that I disagreed with..."
BUT I thought John Wilko's reasons for disliking R Adamson's
presentation/stance were cogent. I hope I won't thereby prejudge RA should
I ever get to hear him read...
AND, for the record, I don't see anything wrong either with constructing
"alternative canons". Dammit, why should them other bastards have all the
firepower?
Sorry, I know this contravenes the prevailing "pluralism is good" orthodoxy
of this list. Well, mine's quite a pluralistic canon.
And sorry, too, that I missed CCCP this year - through circumstances
beyond, etc - Ken
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|