Seth tells us that he's trying out parts of his dissertation or ideas for same. It's an unusual thing to do, and it invites comment, whether of the desired or unwanted kind. My issue with Seth is different from Jeffrey's. While it may not be clear to all readers where Seth falls as a poet, it's eminently clear where he falls on the issue of the academisization of poetry. He's taken some hits on this in the past, and they clearly stung. Now he's trying to define his way out of it by proposing a novel definition of academisization--that it only refers to MA programs not to free standing creative writing departments at universities.

But Jeffrey is right in his characterization of Seth as a poet. There are lots of poems on the internet to bear this out.

Best,

Mark


-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Jul 15, 2012 6:26 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Response to Seth Abramson
>
>Jamie, his bio tells you that he has a deep interest in things connected with “official verse culture”, poetry awards, mainstream academic publishing and the academic dissemination of such poetry via creative writing courses. You might not have read his poetry, but his poetic sympathies seem fairly discernible in his bio. Surely you must see this, unless you want to argue for the sake of argument.
>
>Regarding his statement: "The avant-garde is, as ever, where the future of poetics and poetry lays: It deserves much better than this". That statement is theoretically true whoever says it, despite their not approving of it’s possibility for actualisation. His real point in using it, is to make his biased arguments against the Argotist feature seem measured. It is being used for rhetorical affect—he is a former lawyer, we mustn’t forget.
>
>When you say: “Whatever his allegiances, it rather glues up discussion to say the only reason someone disagrees with you is because he belongs to the enemy camp. It may just as well be that he finds what you're saying unconvincing or untrue”. You can’t have read his criticism and my response to it very closely to say that. I don’t think you’ve read Bob’s response, either, which covers the same ground in more detail.
>
>When you say: “Besides, if the complaint was the exclusion of 'otherstream' by the institutional avant-garde then as likely the mainstream would be on Bob's side, on the principle that my enemy's enemy is my friend”. I don’t think the application of this ideal is applicable in all circumstances, especially where the differing parties are heavily tribal and suspicious of each other, as is the case in poetry.
>
>I hope you are right, though. I think Abrahamson’s views are probably unrepresentative of mainstream views on this subject, and more to do with his liking to take issue publically on controversial topics. Once a lawyer always a lawyer, I suppose.
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Hi Jeffrey,
>  I'm not sure what the bio tells us in this respect and I haven't read
>enough of his poems to have any sense of where he might belong - in what
>anyway I find a tedious way of mapping poetry. (What I have read doesn't
>really fit your idea of "descriptive or anecdotal verse".)
>  What he says himself is:
>"The avant-garde is, as ever, where the future of poetics and poetry lays:
>It deserves much better than this."
>  (You say lays, I say lies.) Whatever his allegiances, it rather glues up
>discussion to say the only reason someone disagrees with you is because he
>belongs to the enemy camp. It may just as well be that he finds what you're
>saying unconvincing or untrue. Besides, if the complaint was the exclusion
>of 'otherstream' by the institutional avant-garde then as likely the
>mainstream would be on Bob's side, on the principle that my enemy's enemy is
>my friend. Ach, a plague on all three houses.
>Jamie