On 29/11/04 10:22 PM, "Peter Riley" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> A lot of interesting writing among all those names Alison mentioned, but I
> can't see the ensemble as a singularity, as a linear thing, a tradition.
> It seems to spread all over the place in all directions, a web or a net.
> To speak relativistically it would only make sense as an "alternative" if
> we define what it is an alternative to. And there too you won't find a
> singularity but a great spread of practices, some of them perhaps very
> close to some of the "alternatives".

Hi Peter

I've been away and am catching up - so forgive scatterling comments.  Just
to point out what might not have been clear - that I was arguing _against_
linearities (code word: coherency) and attempting to paint some kind of
network of clusters with lots of overlaps.  And I left out European
influences altogether - a major oversight, and thanks for correcting it.

I also think poetry can be distinctively British or Irish and yet absorptive
of influences from elsewhere.  In fact, I think that is characteristic of
the best of any poetry from anywhere. I have never thought of art as a
pursuit limited by borders, and have problems with attitudes which assume it
is.  There's a fair bit of self conscious nationalistic ideology in
Australian poetry and literature, and it is always a falsification and a
limitation.

Interesting, your point about Graham and those other poets.  I've read
Graham, if not to any depth, and admire him immensely; and I have often been
puzzled by the easy dismissals of Thomas, whom I have read a lot of, and
find more interesting than he is often said to be.  I have sometimes thought
those dismissals come about because Thomas can be such a baleful influence
on a person's style, but that is hardly his fault.  I have not heard of any
of the others; is it possible to find any of their work?   Though given the
random gaps in my knowledge, this doesn't necessarily indicate anything.
But I do think it is very important to note that developments/evolutions in
poetry or any art can't be limited to the merely reactive.

I do think there must be a way of speaking clearly about
innovative/alternative/whatever poetries which are, as Tim says,
"spectacularly decentred", without having to resort to models which rely on
centralisms, which in the end always hark back to those "good/bad"
polarities.  I of course have my own views on what is good and bad, and
unashamedly subjective they are, but in the end it's a rather boring and
ultimately unilluminating way of discussing literature.

I wonder how much "alternative" poetries , when they are reactive, might be
simply expressions of dissatisfaction against that noble Anglo-Saxon
tradition of anti-intellectualism, that contempt for complexity which ends
up distorting various realities, to all our detriment.  That tradition is
certainly alive and well and thriving here.

All the best

A



Alison Croggon

Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead:  http://masthead.net.au
Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com