Keston -- I do not apologise for the Prynne and Murdoch comparison. I wrote
it in response to Trevor's assertion that Prynne exercises control over
meaning. As to his work I have said exactly why I think his writing is
middle of the road. Someone said something about Paul Muldoon and
cleverness. Muldoon was too clever because he poked fun at Kinsella. This is
really party politics, is it not? I knew Muldoon in the late eighties and I
always found him to be bright, and articulate, but never too "clever" --he
was a nice guy who dealt with lots of issues in a manner I like --see his
Quoof (1983). Besides aren't we allowed to be satirical? What the hell is
wrong with that? Or is that moneyed? As to this rubbish about the "lyrical"
I -- the I is just displaced --in academic discourse you find it in the
preface, in the margins, and the notes --and in Prynne you find it in his
explanatory notes/prose. What is it Seuils --thresholds -- the poem has to
be read within a larger context.
In Japan I saw two poets on television in a boxing ring --reading out their
poetry in a form of duel -- very interesting like flyting(sic?) --perhaps
Jesse saw it too. The judges were academics, audience in the studio,
children off location etc.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|