 |
 |
David B. asked, in a fed-up huff, what the value of the Lind article could be, full of innacuracies and unsupported claims as it is. The answer is very simple, it seems to me: The piece (which appears in a reasonably prominent publication, written by a "well-placed" source) provides a delightful opportunity for entering into gloves-off exchange on some of the issues broached by the Prospect writer! This is why I suggested that Lind be invited by the Poetryetc moderators to subscribe to the list with a view to debating the "value" of his arguments with people who genuinely care about poetry. It's interesting that no one so far seems too enthused by the idea, when, clearly, it would be much more productive of meaningful critical momentum than whining and complaining about the piece to people who already agree that Lind's article is "hilarious", "stupid," "reactionary," "reductive" and so on (all estimations I myself pretty much agree with, though as I also said, a couple or three passages in his essay identify some incontrovertible realities). Of course, I think it's unlikely Lind will agree, but so what? Nothing's wasted, and a point of sorts would be made. If he does agree, I think it is entirely possible taht the discussion could bring in some notables from "both sides" (I'll commit myself to try and go get some of them!) and perhaps even help clarify some important points for those on the "New Formaoist" side who are honestly confused by reductive, simplistic thinking aobut "meter and form" versus "free verse". So let me ask again: Why not extend an invitation to Lind. If one of the list moderators doesn't want to, I would be happy to write a polite post of invite. On a separate point-- Robin, I had mentioned that Lind's comments on the Agrarians were among the most interesting in the article for precisely the apparent contradiction you note. I can only surmise that what peeves him is that the Agrarians/New Critics (most of them at least as politically reactionary as the editors of Prospect magazine!) were, in fact, tough-minded theorists, and it's exactly an absence of intellectual/theoretical rigour that binds the MFA/AWP "free-verse" traditon with the so-called "New Formalists". (Oh, and also, it's Zukofsky, with an "f"-- the "f" for Form, you might say, as Zukofsky as prosodist does to Dana Gioia and posse what the young martial arts master girl does to the gang of thugs in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Kent _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com