 |
 |
I mean, I would only guess realism, depicting a narrative that could have happened as it would have. Sorry if my comments are unwanted. Luke On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I hope I'm not interrupting like this, the discussion is interesting, if a > llittle difficult to follow, who is taking what side. May I ask what the > features of prose narrative are? I can only guess, and don't think google > will help much. > > Cheers, > Luke > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Tim Allen <0000002899e7d020-dmarc- > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I have never noticed any similarity between Heaney and Larkin, except >> that both are so highly rated. I dislike Larkin and am largely indifferent >> to Heaney. The important point below is the reference to "Larkin’s whole >> stated insistence on the poem as self-contained artefact with no resource >> to a ‘myth-kitty’ or other writings etc." which is very much Movement >> poetics. It is Larkin's success in doing this which impresses me, however >> much I dislike it and however far it is from my own enthusiasms. The thing >> is, and this is where it gets complicated, I find nothing wrong in having >> that as your precept - the same idea lies behind haiku for starters - but >> the whole point of Movement poetry is that it is, finally, nothing of the >> sort, it is a poetry infused with tones pointing to small-mindedness and >> prejudice - a twisted view of the world in the guise of realism. It is that >> 'guise' that I loathe, and the echo of that realistic guise reverberates >> through most mainstream English poetry right through the decades since. >> >> Two poets that the mainstream rated who did not share that poetic were >> Ted Hughes and Peter Redgrove. But Heaney is less easy to remove entirely >> from that Movement legacy. >> >> Cheers >> >> Tim >> >> On 14 Sep 2017, at 15:33, Jamie McKendrick wrote: >> >> If you knew Heaney was quoting (the quotation marks make it clear) then >> to call it Heaney’s declaration is ‘deliberately’ misleading. Doubly so to >> then gratuitously link it to Larkin’s supposed ‘descriptive’ bent (in your >> view some kind of furniture inventory), especially when Heaney will know >> the source and will have taken account – as the rest of the poem makes >> clear – of the complex qualifications that Stevens appends “It is not/ The >> thing described, nor false facsimile.” Besides which the whole poem with >> its reference to 4 other authors goes against Larkin’s whole stated >> insistence on the poem as self-contained artefact with no resource to a >> ‘myth-kitty’ or other writings etc. >> Once again, one of the favourite sports on this list, Heaney has been >> portrayed as a disciple of the Movement, with the intent of belittling him. >> It crops up at least every year, usually attended by a silly use of the >> word ‘empirical’. I can’t be bothered to get into it again. >> Jamie >> >> >> >