 |
 |
Is French symbolism as important for the development of Modernism as, say, Apollinaire? Robert -----Original Message----- From: British & Irish poets [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Weiss Sent: 26 August 2009 18:27 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since Wordsworth?" A few clarifications about this side, by no means in the spirit of completeness. Among what's been lost in this discussion is that the key figure in the development of American modernism was Williams, not Pound and certainly not Eliot (whose influence sank like a stone). Pound remains in the equation by way of Olson, who claims both Pound and Williams as prophets and saw himself as completing their work. Williams of course read French symbolism, and one can find it in his work, but it's definitely a substrate. It's closer to the surface in O'Hara and Ashbery, both however children of Williams. Even the US mainstream now lays claim to Williams, though to a Williams reconceived as a proto-confessionalist. I think they miss the point--he becomes in that construction a justification rather than a liberation. Like Wordsworth or Hardy, it's difficult to see how Williams can be held to blame for this. Stevens, universally admired, seems more and more an isolato, despite his influence on Ashbery. Helen Vendler, in the NY Times, recently tried to add him to the ranks of confessional poets, heaven help us. Apropos of Shakespeare, see Olson's Call Me Ishmael. Except when I'm a silly child myself I tend to agree with Peter that the children ought to stop talking nonsense. Mark At 12:56 PM 8/26/2009, you wrote: >Peter, > >I rarely disagree with what you say, it is more often than not a >disagreement with the tired tone that seems to be saying 'stop talking >nonsense you silly children'. But here I do actually disagree, >properly. I do think that 'an academic obsession with genealogies' has >something to do with how some poetry gets written, but I think we have >had a similar argument before - I know you have quite a developed >notion of the poet as an individual. I also think you overestimate the >influence of Shakespeare and underplay the influence of the >symbolistes, if I have understood you correctly, on C20 American. >Can't be bothered backing it up though, so I suppose we had better >drop it. A bit of an academic point too, even in relation to the thread. > >I do understand your objections to some of this stuff, e.g. the >shunting of names and influences, but it is what polemical critics do >and, as I tried to say somewhere back in the thread, it is often a >case of trying to unravel things which have become accepted as the >norm - 'We are British so we don't write like that, we write like >this" etc. It is only recently that I have begun to appreciate how >much the poets of the 40's, for example, have been written out of the >picture. I knew it as a fact before, but not a reality, if you know >what I mean. > >And I like Hardy too, and not just because I'm a Dorset boy. And when >I was about 22 I read loads of Wordsworth in a very positive frame of >mind. > >I'm sticking my neck out here, I know, but I don't think you have paid >enough attention to the material you don't like, and what is said >about it by its champions. There is no reason why you should, of >course, but however much you try to keep apart from it there is always >a time when, in debates like this, it is going to become an issue. >There IS an issue here, connecting Wordsworth with certain strands of >the modern Brit mainstream, and this has nothing to do with what we, >as individual poets and readers, get personally from Wordsworth, or >anybody else. Blast - I think I've just contradicted myself. Time for >tea. > >Cheers >Tim A.