Hello cris, thanks for your series of interesting responses
firstly let me say that I mention Nietzsche not as the first writer ever
to play up or mess around, nor as the first (whatever that might mean) to
suggest that we ought or ought not to be playful in thinking or writing.
Nietzsche is important as the inceptor of 'play' as a hermeneutic strategy
later developed further in deconstructive exegesis. For a quick view of
this, we could read (eg) Habermas's essay on Nietzsche. I take it to be
evident (though you may disagree) that Andrews's poetry makes an appeal to
those prepared to read him in this manner. That is, without necessary
reference to a conflict of prescribed exegetical outcomes with liberal (or
radical) exegetical instincts; overtly the latter would be preferred and
rescued from its traditional dependence on the former (partly since the
former would appear as a correlative of real political prescription, i.e.
legislative authority). I see 'Tizzy Boost', since you mention that book,
as a fairly standard though of course quite properly extreme example of
this preference. I dislike the book utterly and can't see how I couldn't.
To answer another of your questions, yes you're quite right to pre-empt me
with the astrological hint at my preoccupation with 'decline'. Partly I
would say that decline isn't strictly a diachronic register of change, but
can function also as the description of a present state of affairs which
is not inclined rightly. But yes, also I feel that some things have
become worse in the world, just as others have become better. Many of the
things that have become worse seem to me to be of greater importance than
those which have become better. For example, to examine a single moment:
it may be thought better that the US develops SDI, since this would avert
nuclear disaster. But really SDI is a obstacle to detente and always has
been, really constituting a move toward unbridled economic government
through the Bretton Woods Institutions. You may say, what does this have
to do with the bit of Bruce's poetry? It is at this point that I suspect
we would disagree. I do hold to the Hegelian point, developed through
Marx and inverted by Adorno, that the truth is the whole (Adorno said the
opposite). That is, truthfulness is a component of Totality, which
implies the value of circumspect over against privatized reaction in
writing. As I said earlier, I think that the emphasis on 'play' in
current writing tends to privatize the reading experience, by tacit
agitation against the prospect of consensual interpretation, in favour of
a Nietzschean style of reading -out of place in our prese(n)t world-.
All that you say about cross-cultural dialogue and interest is right and
fine, of course I too am committed to that prospect. Perhaps you think
that (eg) the Afrikaaner farmers of the Western Cape would enjoy such a
crossing of boundaries by reading 'Tizzy Boost'?
I hope you don't revert to calling this all 'grim posturing', setting it
alongside the flair and valour of a mind at large more pleasantly. I'm
glad there are poets like Bruce. I don't like his poetry, but it does (in
my view) illustrate how an honourable intent can be turned coercive in its
propaganda of liberal permission.
Sorry to have skipped over so may of your points, this is a lunch break
scrawl, better head back.
Good to have this discussion I think, k
O -- Tom Raworth -- a good point, yes I would uncomfortable about
describing Tom's reasons and views (I'm uncomfortable describing anyone's,
to be honest, but again let me remind everyone hat this is part of an
ongoing debate over the reality of divisions between L and C, and I ought
at least to attempt to see how that Q could be relevant). I like Tom's
work, though I prefer the parts of it which aren't anything like the
Andrews I posted. Let me say: The Cambridge tag IS NOT THE POINT HERE. I
would hope that OTHERS could share my view. I do not mean other POETS
simply.
k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
