Peter, by the way, and on a different topic, I suppose:
Have you considered writing a memoir of the English Intelligencer years?
It would be a valuable document, no question. And probably healthy-controversial?
Just a thought.
Kent
>>> Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> 10/19/16 2:16 PM >>>
No way, amigo!
Peter, for you now, then, is Edward Thomas, say, a better poet than Pound?
Kent
>>> Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> 10/19/16 1:21 PM >>>
I didn't of course (Kent) claim that the Shakespeare controversy was an American affair, I said the tone of it, the militancy, a particular kind of militancy which can get vehement, a sectarian militancy, container villages in the desert. On a subject like identity politics you are strongly spoken but with a righteousness which you are entitled to.
On Oct 19, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Thanks, I will read that, for I'm still interested in understanding the techniques of Olson's actual poems. JHP too has binned most of the resources as far as I can see including transmission, unless very particular reasonings are followed. But i haven't read that interview yet.prOn 19 Oct 2016, at 16:06, Kent Johnson wrote:>American advancedness has caused more poetical messes than I can count, such as the desperate failures which are The Cantos and Maximus.
Peter, here you sound perhaps a bit like Prynne, in his Paris Review interview.
For a defense of projective vista and poetics, contra Prynne's dismissal (and didn't you guys all dig Olson those old Intelligencer years back?), see Michael Boughn's essay, posted just a couple days ago: "scholarship, poetry, and the politics of vision."
http://dispatchespoetry.com/articles/dispatches/2016/10
Kent