 |
 |
Oh dear, I hope I wasn't proposing some kind of détente amongst post-avant or non-avant communities, Melissa. I do think the binary opposition is a bit hackneyed, but I'd not deprive anyone from taking pot shots at each other. I just think we need to be a bit more accurate about how many fronts have opened up in the war, and that the war might better be understood as total conflict. Much of the debate on non-avant and post-avant obscures the enormous range of literatures available to us. If we're going to scrap, let's scrap on a grand scale, not just let the institutionally radical elite poke fun at the hamster cage of prize cultures. I'm sure we recognize such caricatures. I doubt any such conflict resolution could be established, really. Heavens, many poets I deal with have plenty of poison for their peers, that's just a feature of any industry. No, I'm merely concerned about gaining access to a broader picture of the scene and, to some extent, to understand how such scenes are financed. The latter isn't of much interest to most folk here. If readers aren't paying for literature I'd argue that we've got something closer to propaganda. Understanding that gives us a clearer picture of how literatures are created and who is in power. Patronage and advocacy are always fascinating in the arts. Privilege, too. Those three things may well be seen as the bedrock of a community, a community of exclusion. To be frank, I think it's much more interesting to talk to communities of readers, where poetry has to be finally understood, if poetry is to be considered an art of transmission. Most debates about poetry are purely shop talk and if we want the truth, we'd better go and ask the readers, not the writers. But for now, I do want to hear about what's emerging on the scene, and writers do provide a fascinating picture there. We might contrast it with what readers think is happening. But one step at a time.