 |
 |
David, I don't think you've followed what I'm saying. I haven't been dismissing any talk of 'canon-formation' nor, actually, been annoyed, nor have I denied or affirmed any desire for personal recognition. All I've challenged, quite mildly, is the original account that Fieled gives of Keats's reception. Not sure how I could make that any plainer. Jamie Sent from my iPad > On 17 Dec 2017, at 16:11, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I don’t think talking about canon formation should be so easily dismissed as you and Luke seem to be doing. > > I think many poets here—whether they admit it or not (they won’t)—would like some sort of “canonical status”—even if it is only one that is seen as being “legitimate” in limited experimental poetry circles. > > Any poet who denies that they want some sort of recognition or respect from their peers is lying. > > > > ----------Original Message------------------ > > Jamie McKendrick wrote: > > Not really annoying, Luke, but so 'obvious' it's hardly worth remarking. Also, since it's his one example, Fieled's account of Keats's reception is hardly persuasive: to be the subject one of the greatest elegies in the language - Shelley's Adonais - written in 1821, the year he died, is indicative of a marked 'prominence' he had already achieved. What's surprising is surely the opposite to Fieled's point: that a young poet, the orphaned son of a hostler, should be so quickly known of and become both notorious and celebrated. Here, it's again 'obvious' that the general reputation of even poets as excellent as Keats is likely to take some time to consolidate. > Jamie