 |
 |
Ha. The essay I linked to is superficially quite repetitive. I took from it that he's saying that lyric subjectivity is in fact mediated by the market. But is also quietly unhappy with its commercialized society (evident in the poem via submission to language). Luke On 26 January 2018 at 16:39, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Ack, you’re ahead of me here. I’d better look up that essay on Rilke. > Just seen you link in the next. It’s me not you being ignorant. > Jamie > > Sent from my iPad > > On 26 Jan 2018, at 16:30, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Marx and Adorno, from whom much of the talk about commodification > derives, were both well aware of this > > Obviously there's Adorno's discussion of Rilke, but he does kinda seem to > treat it differently even to the rest of literature-- I don't know of any > poets Adorno approved of? Maybe a different sense of terminus to Beckett. > > Luke > > On 26 January 2018 at 16:20, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> There may well be an element of heightened competitiveness once books >> are up for sale, but I think competition goes with the territory – it’s >> there in Catullus (whose poems I happen to have been looking at) in a >> barbed and brilliant style. Your point about classical pastoral holds too. >> And there among the Elizabethans. And, yes, we see it in quite extreme form >> during the Romantic period. >> Could just be ignorance on my part, but I’m resistant to the general >> application of Marxian concepts of commodification to the arts. I accept >> that changes occur when poetry, in this case, enters the market though >> these changes may be superficial. And I also consider poetry quite capable >> of simultaneously playing with and resisting (favoured word in ‘avant’ >> discourse) and transcending (suspect word) those pressures, as I’d think >> Pope does as well. But then I suspect Marx and Adorno, from whom much of >> the talk about commodification derives, were both well aware of this. >> Jamie >> >> *From:* Hampson, R <[log in to unmask]> >> *Sent:* Friday, January 26, 2018 3:38 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Amazing Discovery >> >> >> It is interesting that you take this potential for conflict back to The >> Dunciad. It is tempting to try and link it, then, to the commodification of >> literature - the turn from a patronage model to a commercial model. I tried >> to imagine responses to the introduction of the sonnet into English poetry >> at the Tudor court - and was thinking of the earlier social separation of >> court poets and the various anons of folk culture. Presumably the rivalries >> between court poets weren't about aesthetics. >> >> >> >> I wondered also about the hostile response to early Shakespeare from the >> Cambridge school of his day ...and how the competitions between poets in >> classical pastoral might be figured into this. >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* British & Irish poets <[log in to unmask]> on >> behalf of Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> >> *Sent:* 26 January 2018 15:25:08 >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Amazing Discovery >> >> Beats me! But if were pressed for a better reply I’d say poetry has >> always been a bitterly contested zone from way before The Dunciad. But as >> I’m not in favour of spurious divisions, on the thread about the Rebecca >> Watts article – I think David and Michael both put eloquent arguments for >> and against it. Without getting into whether she might have done it with a >> less personalised attack on Hollie McNish, in the end I’m more of the view >> that if it’s being billed as poetry, it should be looked at as such. And so >> it doesn’t get a free pass (as in ‘category error’) and an exemption from >> ‘literary criticism’. >> Just with reference to the Ted Hughes Prize (mentioned on the other >> thread) which has been won by Kate Tempest and Hollie McNish, I have the >> impression it was set up to favour poetry that mixes-in other media – >> spoken voice, radio, visual – so whatever your take on prizes in general, >> you might consider there’s a point in having one that has looser and more >> inclusive boundaries, rather than it being some kind of media ‘game’ as I >> think was suggested. >> (As for Don Paterson, rebuked by Watts for a volte-face on this issue, >> as editor for Picador there may well be commercial reasons regarding the >> survival of a list for favouring at least some poetry that will sell, but >> my impression of him is that he does state his positions forcefully but >> then, like all of us, is at liberty to change his mind and state a >> different view. It’s presumptuous to claim someone changing their mind is >> dishonest. Otherwise what would be the point of debate? I’m pretty sure, >> for example, his views on ‘avant-garde’ poetry have altered since his >> notorious introduction to The New British Poetry. I have a number of strong >> objections to his ideas about translating poetry – and have expressed them >> in print – but I’m still grateful for the fact that he articulates them so >> forcefully and along the way offers quite a few acute observations about >> the art.) >> >> Jamie >> >> *From:* Hampson, R <[log in to unmask]> >> *Sent:* Friday, January 26, 2018 12:45 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Amazing Discovery >> >> >> How on earth could that have happened? >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* British & Irish poets <[log in to unmask]> on >> behalf of Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> >> *Sent:* 25 January 2018 19:37:31 >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Amazing Discovery >> >> Into ever smaller pieces. >> J >> >> > On 25 Jan 2018, at 19:29, Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> > >> > The Guardian is able to reveal that (1) There is a poetry world. (2) >> It is split. Exclusive. >> > >