 |
 |
I presume that this is meant to be provocative and as such doesn't merit response, but what the hell. This seems to be a standard Tory rewrite of history, motivated, I think, by fear, that the period somehow didn't happen because some of the protagonists weren't acceptable in polite society. By which you mean Ginsberg. Not to accept that take on Allen, let me mention a few names of others significantly active in, influential upon, and informed by the period, some of them rather natty dressers, who would be hard to categorize or dismiss so easily: O'Hara, Ashberry, Spicer, Blaser, Owen, Blackburn, Olson, Duncan, Creeley, Adam, Wieners. There are a slew of others, but these will do for a start. I suggest that you start reading. At 01:12 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote: >Pertinent and scoffing the elitist contingent. The 60s were political, >mostly media-conscious, strident and coarse. Sixties poetry rich with >inflated voices of socially critical angst pronouncements. The era was dry >to the bone on poetry. Rather a large disappointment, and in the end, >self-serving, meek, ineffectual, political polemics, I'm afraid. A few >poems, no more. > >As it stands in historical perspective, one might blink and not see that >brilliant generation bearded and barefoot. > >Ernest Slyman >HomePage >www.geocities.com/soho/7514 >email: [log in to unmask] > > > > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%