 |
 |
As a youngish poet (37), I'm certainly interested in British/Irish/Australian poetry, poetry in translation, and in publishing in the greater English-speaking world (I regularly submit to a handful in the UK). I've always thought wide reading was crucial, and have of late been exploring young British poets and journals, and finding them much more playful and lighthearted than their American counterparts. I do sense some level of unconcern among my peers, but part of that is due to the sheer volume of American output--keeping up with a twentieth of it feels beyond impossible. Actually, now that I think of it, most of my recent British youth reading has been English-centric, would appreciate any Scottish/Welsh/Irish recommendations that come to mind--youth here being defined as say 45 and under. On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Kent: Interesting. I suspected the blanket ignorance among the young, but > I don't have that much contact with them. As to the Language poets, I have > had my own issues with them, but I do know that several of them are deeply > knowledgeable about earlier writing and conversant with a lot of what's > going on in the UK and Ireland. For the most part they don't write about > it, tho. > > Re: the Rothenberg anthologies, we owe a tip of the hat to Jeffrey > Robinson, who co-edited Rothenberg's Romantics volume. Jeffrey has lived in > Glasgow for the past several years. He organized the recent jamboree there. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kent Johnson > Sent: Oct 20, 2016 11:53 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Britain vs. U.S. Poetry war > > I should mention one big exception to the disregard for "tradition" among > LangPo figures (though like Palmer her relation to the group is > complicated): > > Susan Howe's work on Dickinson and other pre-20th century sources, most of > them American. > > The exception makes the rule, maybe. > > Also, in further response to Peter's somewhat wholesale framing of > American disregard, there is the extended anthology project begun by > Rothenberg and Joris which brings forth a range of English writers--not > least of the Romantic period--as precursors to the new. This is a singular > case, granted, but its influence had been significant. > > >>> Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> 10/20/16 8:18 AM >>> > Curiously, I don't remember saying anything like that. I thought I was > talking about American poets' attitudes to British poetry, > conventional or innovative, which with exceptions I have found > consistently negative for the last 40 years. This was very noticeable > in the running of the Cambridge Conference of Contemporary Poetry for > instance. Our enthusiasm for the new American poetry knew no bounds > but was clearly not reciprocated. > > I suggest we not start a discussion as to whether the "experimental" > can claim the "left field" as its own. > > > PR > > > On 20 Oct 2016, at 11:00, Tim Allen wrote: > > Yes to that Jaime, but at least arguing over Shakespeare is harmless, > I think. For me I'd rather walk the dog but would gladly sit back and > be entertained by a TV programme about it. > > Just want to remind you American folks that Peter's views are his > alone and that his negative opinions about some Brit left-field poetry > are just as forceful, only he kind of blames Americans for that too, > for tempting people like me away with your 'novelty'. I always found > much more to like in C20 American poetry than British until around > 2000 when it somehow tipped the other way. My influences are mainly > French anyway. > > Cheers > > Tim > > >