there has been much discussion of late about Cambridge Poetics, recently
adjoined to Language Poetry. my own feelings, for what they're worth,
are thus:
a) i regard CamPo & LangPo not so much as existent entities as states
of mind.
b) in my opinion any attempt to write as a member of a 'school' will
result in a sort of MacDonald-alization of poetry - i.e. the same
product everywhere & anywhen.
c) some of the writers who are perceived under the catchphrase
umbrellas of CamPo & LangPo are utterly individual - for instance Bob
Perelman in the latter case or Mike Haslam in the former.
d) altho' i like Jeremy Prynne's texts i do feel his work lacks
'urgency' - compare J.H.P to Cesar Vallejo for example. i understand
where Peter Riley is 'coming from' in his complaints about 'moneyed'
langauge & i'd go three parts of the way with him on it - however, i
feel it's not so much moneyed as leisured language - i know that leisure
implies money but ... - & that this leisuredness brings with it a
certain dis-engagement - the prominence of airy adjectives, the
sedateness of the rhythms, the lack of contact with the body & thew of
our language.
anyroadup, i hope this of some help to the debate
lots of love all round
david
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|