 |
 |
That would partly be my point, Pierre. The modernists certainly looked back. And the Objectivists and the NAP poets, generally speaking, were attentive to pre-20th century sources.
With the concerted LangPo move to bury the forefathers (including some folks still alive when they embarked on the effort), things became much more circumscribed in the present, a condition you yourself describe for your generation. And (with some promising exceptions) that "present" is still very much playing itself out with the younger "avant" U.S. generation, which seems quite comfortable and happy with its provincialism.
>>> Pierre Joris <[log in to unmask]> 10/20/16 4:26 PM >>>
Well, I don’t know of many, if any, poets of my generation (and that’s the langpo generation) who, even when making a living in academe, have done much writing on pre 20C lit. Most of us have concentrated on writing on our direct predecessors (or at most, back to the originators of modernism), be it to exalt or bury them, and on our own generations. Though there must obviously be some who have have written on Milton or Shakespeare (if I were to do so I’d probably write on Marlowe) or… oh, Chuck Stein just came to mind with his marvelous Homer translations…
On Oct 20, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Kent Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Well, I have to strongly differ with Pierre here. I never said that some of the LangPos aren't knowlegeable; I said that serious discussion of pre-20th century English poetry is almost totally absent in their poetics. This is not debatable; it is the record. One could say that this is consistent with their early avant-garde stances (long ago dissipated down the air-conditioning vents of the institutional habitus), but it is the way things were and are. Almost none of the poets Pierre lists, below, had any direct relation to Language, so not sure how they enter the argument. All praise to the great and catholic Robert Kelly indeed.And I never said the LangPos don't know or care about contemporary UK avant poetry. Indeed, they were among the first to reciprocate, following certain NAP figures, like Dorn. I said the English tradition, which is what Peter was talking about, as I understood him.Just to clarify, then...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]>
Sent: Oct 20, 2016 11:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Britain vs. U.S. Poetry war<[log in to unmask]> 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