What the hell does that mean, Luke?
I may have to start saying stupid things about Brits, because, you know, it's a competition thing.-----Original Message-----
From: Luke
Sent: May 13, 2018 6:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]AC.UK
Subject: Re: on verbs in poetry> I too balk at the use of “product” and “industry” when used to refer to poetry. Their capitalist roots are too shocking, too stark. But the real problem with the terms is that they are devastatingly inaccurate in any perception of poetry as it exists in contemporary culture.We may be full of bonhomie here, but I get the vague impression that Americans will be hyper competitive about anything. When you have genuine losers and winners surely you have something closer to economics... wealth as narcissistic supply maybe?Just a thought.LukeOn 13 May 2018 at 17:04, Jaime Robles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Well, David, you don’t have to READ the poetry you don’t like. And I’m not sure where the idea that one might have to adjust the poetry that is being written (by anyone) comes from. The idea of doing so, of deciding the standards and therefore imposing some forms of censorship, always stalls at the inevitable question: who will decide those standards? You, me, the Royal Academy, Christian evangelicals, Chinese Marxists?Is vitriolic criticism the most effective form of censorship? Or it simply the most obvious (and for some people, most satisfying) form of censorship because of its aggression, its violence, its release of frustration by the perpetrator, the fear it invokes in the target, and the comradely righteousness it releases in those who similarly believe? The other most frequently used control in patriarchal cultures, including Marxist-based ones, is silence. Ignoring the spoken, written word of another in order to make them feel invisible, and to feel that what they say, express, think, experience is not worth being heard, thought about or experienced.Those seem to be the two preferred forms of control in our cultures. The question I have is: What exactly is being protected when they are imposed?I too balk at the use of “product” and “industry” when used to refer to poetry. Their capitalist roots are too shocking, too stark. But the real problem with the terms is that they are devastatingly inaccurate in any perception of poetry as it exists in contemporary culture. The only poetry that can make claim to “product” are those found in greeting cards. Poetry today because of its marginal economic status and its illusory past seems to be one of few arts where you can experiment, contemplate language and its connection to life, and do that unperturbed in the moment.I believe it is a mistake to think that reducing the impact of one form of poetry will enhance the power of another, especially within the context of cultures that are of necessity having to change radically and quickly in order simply to survive.
J______________________________QS: Let’s return to poetics.JR: When did we leave?—From the conversation between Quinta Slef and Joan Retallack, The Poethical WagerOn May 13, 2018, at 1:07 AM, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:DaveRoque Dalton was keen to be a true Marxist, until his comrades shot him.Commodification though is boring, and narks me. I have seen so many poets, of the left included, who have turned themselves into a product, a neatly wrapped verbal package. Yawn yawn. What we need is a return to aggressive vitriolic reviewing, it might not help anyonme's writing, but could fool the punters into thinking something is really at stake. Bring back Ian Hamilton from the after hours I mean life, Geoffrey Grigson too, even if it means Jane's cookbooks as well. Most of all, distant Lord, resurrect FR Leavis (with Queenie in hot pursuit of meaning)On 13 May 2018 at 02:58, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:LukeIf I may add an actual third post in a row?I wonder how this discussion might link to 'commodification'? We might want to think that, mainstream / or underground, our authentic selves are somehow over and above commodification, even if our behavior, even imagination, is not. I know that some of you are Marxists, and, I assume, better ones than me. So what, then?On 12 May 2018 at 23:56, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:I was just looking at Ashbery's 'Europe', and was struck by its decisiveness. Does that have anything to do with it? I mean, I think everyone agrees that 'authenticity' is primarily about the self, and its freedom )from?), so that could be one of those good answers, apparently trivial? Anyway, maybe better not to pin it down.Cheers,LukeOn 12 May 2018 at 22:47, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Well IME, as someone recovering from a "schizophrenia" diagnosis, it can be.LukeOn 12 May 2018 at 21:35, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:All written language is a foreign language.-----Original Message-----
From: Luke
Sent: May 12, 2018 4:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]C.UK
Subject: Re: on verbs in poetry> The language of authenticity is a learned behavior.Luke
And Ashbery's "language"?On 12 May 2018 at 20:10, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:The language of authenticity is a learned behavior.-----Original Message-----
From: David Bircumshaw
Sent: May 12, 2018 2:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]C.UK
Subject: Re: on verbs in poetryYes.Tristan. But for instance Peter Porter wrote poems about losing his wife. Surely those were equally authentic.On 12 May 2018 at 18:56, Tristan Moss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:She lost an adult son. Read the poem by Riley Luke. Here’s a link to it. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n03/denise-riley/a-part-song
She just has a great way with words and the ability to choose just the right one. Of course, this adds to the authenticity of the voice.
Not suggesting that you haven't! Just suggesting that one can't decide from your description, anymore than you can from knowing the Riley's (or at least, the author) lost a baby.Luke
On 12 May 2018 at 18:29, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Surely it's impossible to say without reading itLuke
> Tom Paulin, an otherwise fan, regarded it as 'adolescent'.
On 12 May 2018 at 09:02, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Are the best-selling Birthday Letters authentic?? Is Maya Angelou ditto?Is Peter Reading's 'C' authentic? A hundred pieces of prose behaving like poems each a hundred words long written in a style au naturel but as artificial and calculated as a wedding song by Spenser. A fake fiction about cancer by a man who once had it and another time would die from it. Tom Paulin, an otherwise fan, regarded it as 'adolescent'.This interesting Tim, and knotty, but it has the feel of real discussion. One might almost say authentic :)DH Lawrence could well be called authentic. Yet he was also rhetorical and pretentious, all those dark gods that had no place wandering the streets of an imagination made a bus ride from Nottingham.
Best
Dave
On 11 May 2018 at 11:44, Tim Allen <0000002899e7d020-dmarc-reques[log in to unmask] > wrote:
Yes exactly Luke, the 'how' is still missing, at least in the sense of describing a 'how' that was special to Riley. I used the word 'authentic' because of its innate problems - it is one of the most difficult terms to use when applied to the arts, but nevertheless I think my use of it in the context of Riley is 'authentic'.
Perceptions of and identifying authenticity in music is an even more contentious - the process that leads from authentic feeling and expression first to model/form then to simulacrum and finally to soulless golem (e.g. x factor or whatever) is almost impossible to untangle.
Cheers
Tim
On 11 May 2018, at 02:03, Luke wrote:
I'm still missing a how. No-one is innately authentic, so how does one go about it? Incidentally. I was recently listening to Kurt Cobain, of Nirvana, ha, and it struck me so, also. So not limited to poetry, anyway!