 |
 |
>> lyric subjectivity is in fact mediated by the market. But is also quietly unhappy with its commercialized society. He also seems to talk about being *consoled* by the language of lyric poetry. So I guess you have an alienated subjectivity that has its unhappiness about it mitigated (ironically I think, perhaps because it shows up our insignificance). I couldn't get past the repetition. Doesn't make the essay seem vacuous, just directionless etc.. Sorry, Luke On 26 January 2018 at 18:23, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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. >>> >> >> >