Jamie, I appreciate the tone of your response and I take on board what
you say about that translation activity. All I would say on that
though is that it is not high profile is it? It is not really
accessible to a general poetry browser in the same way that such stuff
was when I was young and could pick up this stuff all over the shop,
so to speak. Available translations of the European modernists had, in
my opinion, as much influence, if not more, on the Brit avant garde of
the late 60's, than imports from Black Mountain and San Francisco. And
ok, I'll try not to confuse you with some whole other person. Such a
whole other person might have had his bearded mug splashed across two
pages of the Weekend Guardian a few weeks ago.
Cheers
Tim A.
On 26 Aug 2009, at 16:36, Jamie McKendrick wrote:
> If I've understood you, you're right Wordsworth has never been a
> problem for me, and in this respect I welcome and endorse the
> clarity of Peter Riley's post which I've just read. I think it helps
> not to turn poets into weapons.
> But perhaps you mean I've been 'lucky' to avoid a proper
> investigation of my own writing practices by my affiliation with the
> opposed camp?
> I see that the implied question behind both your mails - why is one
> practice given practically all of the oxygen of media publicity and
> the other so little - has not really been broached. But what I've
> written may at least help you not to confuse me "with some whole
> other person" as Gene Hackman once put it.
>
> Jamie
etc
|