 |
 |
You know very well Peter that certain names have been mentioned before with regard to this issue followed by the inevitable hooha. There is also the problem, as I've said before, that it isn't so much particular poets as particular poems. My poetry library is pretty extensive and 90% or so of it is stuff that I have because I really like it, there are some exceptions but I don't tend to keep stuff I don't like. The only place I could probably find good examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about now are somewhere in my folders of old poetry mags, and if I was writing a serious article on the subject that's where I'd go - or spend all day at a table in Waterstones. Sorry, can't be bothered with that. I could dig out old Terrible Work reviews I suppose. Of course there are the anthologies... all tiresome. But it's not a phantom, I'm not stupid, and as for defensive mechanisms, well, I'd have to ask my psychiatrist. But hold-on, I am not the avant-garde, I'm just one bloke who has made certain observations. I am not Keston either - or am I? - I'll see if my psychiatrist can sort that one out too. Cheers Tim On 26 Aug 2015, at 21:21, Peter Riley wrote: > If someone would mention just one poet's name among all this categorical stuff about a "mainstream" or an "artificial poetry" I might begin to make a bit of sense out of it. Until then I am left with a strong suspicion that what is said describes no known poetry but is a phantom of the avant-gardist's defensive mechanisms. > P