LukeThat's really interesting Jamie, thanks. I could read avant-garde poetry without an interest in rhythm, but it'd still lose its bite for me, if not interest.On 11 January 2018 at 13:25, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Eureka! A lack of interest in and an ignorance about rhythm: the one thing that unites the mainstream and the avant-garde.One small example: the responses of Anthony Easthope and Craig Raine to Edward Thomas. Neither can hear, or bother to hear, the rhythm, and so both find him insipid.JamieAndrew's main concern does seem to be content, you are right - 'content' in the sense that he is more interested in the result than in the processes that go into that result. I don't think he would argue with that either. Might be wrong.On 10 Jan 2018, at 18:55, Jamie McKendrick wrote:If I remember right, Andrew Duncan, who is so enquiring about so many things, somewhere dismisses the whole question of rhythm as though it’s all utterly basic stuff and otherwise a distraction.