-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Joris <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Oct 20, 2016 12:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Britain vs. U.S. Poetry war

Have to agree with Mark here. Kent’s blanket condemnation was over the top. I agree that creative writing programs (as separated from English departments) are much to blame for historical ignorance, though it is only natural that young wannabe poets look to their just-elders, living poets for inspiration first & only in a second or third moment (if they are serious about their art) start looking at the tradition(s). 

As Mark says, the language poetas are not to blame here — most of the ones I know are very knowledgeable when it comes to the older traditions. Many others of our contemporaries should be mentioned too: quickly: Robert Kelly is one of the best-read poets I know (check out his write-through of Shelley’ Montblanc, among many other works), the same goes for the likes of Gerrit Lansing, Anne Waldmann, Jerome Rothenberg, George Economou, Ed Sanders, both Howe sisters, Chuck Stein, Don Byrd, among those I know personally well enough to make such a judgment.

Pierre

On Oct 20, 2016, at 6:20 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 <[log in to unmask] class="">
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

<[log in to unmask]>

<[log in to unmask]>