Keston,
You asked:
>I'd be interested to know if anyone here does think that poetry written in
>Cambridge seems to display the money it took to be produced?
Not all (I know that there's a lot more happening in Cambridge than
sometimes appears on this list under the rubric "Cambridge Poetry") - but
some, yes. It's more noticeable, though, in the self-presentation outside
the poetry: the hifalutin (and dull) streams of polysyllables, the air of
inward-looking complacency, the trotting out of theory for dressage
rather than use. And all this is at its most embarrassing, as in the
CCCP9 review, when it essays humour. As Beckett remarked of Watt, "he had
seen people smile and he thought he understood how it was done".
I've got much fine poetry from Cambridge, but I don't consider it
"Cambridge poetry", just "good".
I've no idea whether this is what Peter was referring to in his mails,
but it's one answer to your question.
Trevor
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Eye - Irish Poetry & the Universe of Writing
http://indigo.ie/~tjac/sound_eye_index.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|