>Keston wrote:
>
>> This I
>> think is similar to what might be going on today: the obscurity and
>> rebarbative allusion of much 'Cambridge' poetry -- which is different
>from
>> the obscurity of eg Language poetry in its emphasis on compulsory
>> erudition -- could be the product of leisure
>
>Keston, would you be so kind as to spell out (briefly) how you
>see the contemporary 'Rebarbative' poetry produced under
>the Cambridge moniker as essentially different from that
>emanating from the US bearing the Language logo? (This is
>a serious question--I assume they are permitted in this forum.)
>Remark: I don't have any a priori quibble with either; I'm trying
>to sort out my own ambivalent, but sometimes very positive,
>reactions to examples of both.
Perhaps I am missing the point here. What the hell is rebarbative poetry? Is
it repellent poetry? Or is it poetry written by bearded French men? Or is it
poetry written by repellent bearded men? As to this discussion about
leisure products, I am not too sure about the reasoning. Is rebarbative
poetry the product of leisure, because Cambridge University students have
lots of free time on their hands? Or is Language Poetry the work of Sunday
poets, people who have a day off from working?
Harold's mention of logo is interesting because it reminds me of
intellectual property law, and trade marks etc. Cambridge University is in
this sense a form of intellectual property and its shield etc, a logo of
sorts, and those who write in Cambridge might be said to share or profit
from the name and logo--though it would be impossible to enforce, unlike
those who trade with say Golden Arches or McBurgers. I was once a Bromsgrove
Poet --God knows what associations that has, but to many
outside of the Birmingham area it has none --they haven't a clue where it
is.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|