I think Keston is saying something like:
1. CamPo strikes a pose of erudition in a more consistent
and intrinsic manner than LangPo does (and requires
more of the same from the putative reader?)
2. Both poetries would like to subvert a perceived coercion
exerted by 'texts' (on whom or what?),
but each conceives this coercion and the nature of any
effective poetic resistance to it differently.
LangPo is more sanguine about the possibility of
'free' private interpretations.
These points seem questionable to me at first blush. To
take a couple of random examples lying to hand
(not wishing to categorise poets rigidly and fully aware
of the absurdly small sample size here):
The first few lines of Prynne's 'Red D Gypsum':
Now trek inter-plate reversion to earth buy out
as waters buried or get carrier up ready put
across gypsum branch effaced, as root planed...
The first few lines of Coolidge's 'The Tab':
mica flask moves layout hasty
bunkum geode olive loin candle
mines repeating sky hot dregs, in cast...
Or the beginning of McCaffery's 'Little Hans':
Each sockeye of adulterous claim
The prawns which is, which cannot be
In I, like others, surds the name
Enamel sedge antinomy.
(The latter two taken from Messerli's 'Other
Side of the Century' anthology.) Again, not wishing
to oversimplify, but is it obvious that there is any
big difference in erudition or reader-response
expectations here (or indeed of poetics in general)?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|