Fascinating article and reviews Peter. I am too ignorant about the original sources of the stuff to argue much, all I can say is I really enjoyed both the Hughes and Halsey books, but they are the only ones I have read fully. I've read quite a few of the Atkins though and heard him read some as well - I enjoyed them though they didn't work for me as well as the Hughes but I have no idea why - either way i don't think it has anything to do with the distance from the original text because I wouldn't know. However a few comments...
I've read the paragraph below many times but I just do not know what you mean by 'the misrepresentation of the world we live in'. Do you really mean that? You really have it in for Atkins don't you. And could you explain what you mean by 'American animalistic' view of the human spirit, as opposed to the European one, whatever it is?
Also re Michael's pointing out the Led Zeppelin reference in Atkins - I just do not understand what you are saying about it below. You appear to be criticising Atkins for a lack of sense transmission in the same breath as criticising him for making a sense transmission. Is it just because it was a reference that your cultural background would not have picked up on? Same in your review with regard to Amarillo in the Terry, - 'is this the way to Amarillo?'
Cheers
Tim (Allen)
On 17 Mar 2018, at 20:39, Peter Riley wrote:
+ (Mark:) What troubled me was not so much the misrepresentation ( especially partialisation) of the original author (that is almost a necessary condition of “translation” itself) but the misrepresentation of the world we live in.
+ (Michael:). I think it goes further than that, I think it involves the whole question of non-transmissive poetry, the abhorrence of “sense”(explicitly by at least one senior poet I can think of) and Atkin’s dismissal of “content”. I mean once you’ve chucked it you can’t have it back. I can’t see how your explanation of the word “Plant” changes anything at all. It’s really a very academic tactic. In fact you’ve done exactly what I said near the end of that section, that they will find a way somehow of claiming a transmission when the author seems to do everything he/she can to avoid one. He’s chucked sense and you’re handing it back to him. There must be some theory of subliminal exposition involved which I can’t trust for a second. sure those two lines can (for the aficionado) “invoke” those questions of concern, but there is no way the poet can be said to have made any kind of statement about any of them. “Saying”is a completely different process from this.