the 'war' is not my construct - comes from hearing some pretty interesting (and
uninteresting) conversations. it is also ironised within the construct of the
'anthology poetry wars'. the piece itself should have some internal dialogue
happening - it is talking with its own means of production as much as 'from' or
'to'. if paperbark hadn't picked up peter minter, michael brennan etc., the
landscape would be far more oppressive. for many many years alternative poetries
have been kept out of 'commercial' publishing. they haven't been distributed.
that's a 'cold war' in this context. it's not as polite as it all seems i'm
afraid. oh, there's talk of an oz 'new formalist' anthology evolving. that will
Debbie Comerford wrote:
> I'm employing the term 'war' as you do in the article John, and this is
> exactly what I'm referring to - why use the terminology 'a new poetry war is
> emanating from Sydney' if what you mean is that a number of poets are
> engaging in intense dialogue?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Kinsella <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: A caution
> > p.s. i assume, d, that when you use the word 'wars' you are doing so in
> > a pure textual sense. i don't feel it can be used in any clausewitzian
> > kind of way without causing great hurt to those who have experienced it.
> > 'poetry wars' as an expression epitomises the 'sacredness' of much
> > poetry culture (i reckon). i use it with deep irony. as i guess we all
> > do...?
> > best,
> > jk