I was just concerned about what seemed an arbitrary sense of dismissal - the
term 'beat' is so abstract and serves few. The critical history still very
much unfolding - so much was exploding through the roof postwar up to 1962
or so. It is easy to short circuit the diversity (Bishop and Lowell do not
fit into that diversity - however). Like imagining a conversation between
Larkin and Bunting (or Tom Raworth, for that matter).
Oh well, I stop here. I don't want to get into simplifications, either.
Stephen V
http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
> I'm wary of making judgments on such a huge beast as American poetry,
> you asked: O'Hara seems to me to have the critical wind currently.
>
> FWIW, I prefer Rexroth - I bought a copy of him when I was 18 and it
> seems he burned into me at such an early age - Whalen seems
> interesting to me as well. McClure. Sometiems, though, I have no idea
> of whom I read, have read, their labels,,,,shrugs doesnt understand
> lenelabklels. my favourite us poets weldon kees and whitman and bishop
> and lowell.
>
> Roger
>
> On 4/23/06, Stephen Vincent <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> See most other beat poets
>>> and writers, few of whom still have a critical reputation worth
>>> speaking of, most of whom are historical relics already.
>>
>> Who are you referencing here, Roger? I wd be curious to know.
>>
>> Stephen V
>>
>
>
> --
> http://www.badstep.net/
> http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
|