There's a thesis somewhere in that, Robert.
"Permutations of the Arriere-garde in the Early Twenty-first Century: Or How I Learned to Submit to Lexigraphic Chastity, er, Diversity"
Or something along those lines …
Oh dear, did I use the dread academic word? OK, a book of non-lineated poetry. Same title.
Cheers,
J
___________________________
Jaime Robles
On 9 Dec 2013, at 12:27, Hampson, R wrote:
> Tim, I do like the idea of generating all those fine distinctions ( 'neo-academic-post-avant', as opposed let's say to 'neo-primitive-urban-dada'). I am also fond of the idea of the arriere-garde as well.
>
> Robert
>
> From: British & Irish poets [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Allen
> Sent: 05 December 2013 18:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: baBoom
>
> I know Peter I know. It's tiresome. Once again, arguing about the term. In this case it was you who used it, not me. I just followed through so pointed to the plurality of things which either the makers themselves, or the commentators upon it, call either avant-garde or one of the similar terms. I said myself that the term lost its metaphorical relevance ages ago. I have no truck with those who still think that what they do is ahead of the game, or better, and I've put myself on the line here before on that topic - I don't believe that something is superior just because it has scrambled syntax, is made with a computer programme or is multi-media or whatever. I think that attitude is quite stupid. But then I don't think that poems written with a pen in a notebook and composed out of the writers head are superior either, just by being what they are. And it's not a matter of 'pioneer groups spread across the countryside competing, though that made me laugh, because yes, the 'particular parts' of this thing could very well be individual poets who are not competing at all but reading and listening to each other openly even though what they do is very different. I don't do what you do. I don't do what Alan Fisher does either.
>
> Your comment about my discourse being full of categories in preference to poets and poems. Wasn't it me who brought Armitage and Raworth into the mix? But this forum does not lend itself to close reading etc . it never has. It's also because any single text will always be as slippery as hell when you try to use it to demonstrate something here. I'm sitting here at the computer writing what comes into my mind, I'm not putting a lecture together. I'm not a literary academic either - I don't carry hundreds of examples around in my head of this type of poem or that one - sorry.
>
> It's funny, this thing about poetry and the terms for factions. In the music world, especially in what they call urban music etc, they love to chop all the different styles (some of which differ very little to each other) up into the finest distinctions in brilliantly named categories. The artists love to be called things. There is a certain type of writing coming out of America which I would like to dub 'neo-academic-post-avant', as opposed let's say to 'neo-primitive-urban-dada' or something and I could name names if I had to think about it properly. It's fun. Why are writerly people so precious about names? I've been called all sorts - postmodern, linguistically innovative, avant-garde (on at least one occasion), Language Poet (oh yes) and some other less appealing ones too, like weird, I don't particularly care, as long as the term is being used in good faith. I've always considered myself to be simply post-surrealist.
>
> Before calling it a day though I must comment on, "E.g. Prynne and LanguagePoetry are (or were as I remember) fiercely opposed forces which can't possibly be represented as a unit." I never said they were a 'unit'. I said that they both owed a debt to a certain inheritance from Marxist aesthetics (or something like that) I know very well that they are quite different - but I would venture to say that their differences are symptomatic of trying to deal, within their own cultural contexts, of a similar problem. Help! Someone Help!. I used them as the two big examples of what are seen as the two main avant poles from the US and us. NOTE - WHAT ARE SEEN AS. I'm not saying that I, me, personally, think this (but I'm not say I don't either).
>
> And I don't get why you've quoted that bit about' by deploying what Silliman calls the new sentence...' - that wasn't me.
>
> I'm off to dog training now. I'm doing very well.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> On 5 Dec 2013, at 17:06, Peter Riley wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5 Dec 2013, at 12:35, Tim Allen wrote:
>
> I think Peter needs to tell us which particular part of the avant-garde he is referring to.
>
> That's rather difficult to do when you don't really believe in the concept, especially when it gets pluralised and you start talking about "avant-gardes". When I say "the avant-garde" I mean "poets who think they are the avant-garde", which is actually the biggest or most immodest claim you can make because it says "I and I alone am the future" (albeit sometimes spoken for a group, any way messianic.) In principle there can only be one. You can't have different pioneer corps spreading across the countryside leading the army towards battle in different directions. And its "particular parts" can only be the names of poets.
>
> Tim, your discourse is full of categories which you seem to prefer to talk about rather than poets or poems. I can't trust any of them. E.g. Prynne and LanguagePoetry are (or were as I remember) fiercely opposed forces which can't possibly be represented as a unit. Or you can only unite them in one way if you clearly disunite them in another. That "mainstream" young person whose modest immodest poetry you detest can't have much in common with Geoffrey Hill.
>
> I think the things I said about the relationship of ethics and aesthetics are entirely accurate and point to the big unsolved question of all that kind of writing whether you call it avant-garde or whatever. ("that kind of writing" is defined as "writing which does those things")
>
> And another thing--
> "by deploying what Silliman calls "the new sentence" (disjunctive, chiasmatic) or by decontextualizing "the old sentence" or by breaking the word into vocables as per Cobbing or losing the words down the guttering between the pages ( as in the Andrea Brady poem I was reading last night) or a hundred other etceteras."
>
> Do you know I can't think of a single good reason for doing any of those things, including the extra hundred.
>
> But let's not talk like this; it's managerial.
>
> PR
>
>
>
