Billy writes: "I guess what I mean is a poetry in which the product, a
finished, polished poem, is what counts. Prynne often seems, to me at
least, to be all polish, and his works are closed systems, despite anything
his admirers might say. I don't dislike his work, just feel that there are
so many more interesting
British poets who deserve the attention Prynne gets. Most poets probably
fit into this category."
Maybe: but I don't think Prynne does. Even if one confined oneself to the
early poems, the Olsonian quality of which militates against
poem-as-product, the reader is hardly presented with anything approaching
the kind of "closure" Billy would appear to be talking about. Some of
Olson's comments on "open form," etc., though not exhausting the procedures
of these early poems, seem much more apposite to their working than the
appellation "closed." Perhaps Billy's interesting taxonomy needs
finnessing a little with regard to its first category.
Alex
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|