 |
 |
Sorry, Jeff - an afterthought. You're quite right that I shouldn't have listed 'ambiguity' which is surely something your approach highly values. Perhaps substitute 'sound'! Jamie > On 22 Oct 2016, at 19:19, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > My view, as you'll no doubt have guessed, is that 'empirical' never adequately described the range of what you call 'mainstream' poetry anyway, or at least not the better examples of it, so it's hard to say how far it's altered during your 16 years of abstinence. As you'll be well aware, Wordsworth is read very differently from you by many in the avant-garde tradition, not least by Prynne. The descriptive has many mansions and not that many look out the same way. > I didn't conclude you were saying these elements I listed 'need necessarily have no place in poetry that isn't descriptive' but that your way of reading poems 'largely ignored' them. We seem to agree, though, that neither of us are likely to convince the other, so with all respect I'll probably sign off on this, > Jamie > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Side > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 6:57 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Britain vs. U.S. Poetry war > > Jamie, I have to stress again, that although I quote both Crozier and Shepard in the thesis, and write about some linguistically innovative poets in the latter part of it, it is not devoted to such poetries. It is an examination of the influence of Wordsworth’s poetic ideas on the development of mainstream descriptive poetry up until the year 2000. > > Maybe mainstream poetry is no longer like this (I don’t know. I’ve avoided reading it since 2000). For all I know, it might have been influenced by the sort of poetry I advocate—or indeed by Dylan. Can anyone tell me if this is the case or not? That is a sincere question. If so, then my criticism of mainstream poetry should only be regarded as applying to mainstream poetry before the year 2000. > > Yes, I appreciate that my views on poetry will never be accepted by you. They are, perhaps, though, not as “extreme” as you seem to think. A little ambiguity and abstraction never did a poem any harm, in my view. > > And I don’t think that the poetic elements you mention (tone, irony, ambiguity, rhythm, internal conflict, play, etc) need necessarily have no place in poetry that isn’t descriptive. How did you come to that conclusion? It can’t have been derived from what I have advocated—from others possibly, but not from me. It could be that you have been projecting what you find intolerable in experimental poetry onto my ideas about poetry. I don’t know. > > > > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, 18:18, Jamie McKendrick wrote: > > > Jeff, I quite accept my description is meagre - but you'll understand too > that this is a discussion group not a peer-reviewed article. And I don't > think your argument is at all 'outlandish' - on the contrary this > semi-philosophical usage of the term (and to your credit you do explore some > sources of the empiricist tradition) applied to various kinds of poetry > precedes your thesis by many decades - I've often cited Crozier and later > Sheppard in this respect, and also complained that it's become a kind of > often unthinking orthodoxy in various circles. My own view is that it's an > inadequate and unhelpful way of viewing poetry and that it largely ignores > elements such as tone, irony, ambiguity, rhythm, internal conflict, play, > along with a great many often essential elements we enjoy in poetry, but I > don't think we're going to agree about any of this. > Jamie