You seem to know as much of Williams as you do of Baudelaire and Poe.
Or are you merely being provocative?
Mark
At 02:00 PM 8/26/2009, you wrote:
>Yes, and Williams was an American. I think his poetry slight, though his
>influence significant.
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:27:06 -0400, Mark Weiss
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >A few clarifications about this side, by no means in the spirit of
> >completeness.
> >
> >Among what's been lost in this discussion is that the key figure in
> >the development of American modernism was Williams, not Pound and
> >certainly not Eliot (whose influence sank like a stone). Pound
> >remains in the equation by way of Olson, who claims both Pound and
> >Williams as prophets and saw himself as completing their work.
> >Williams of course read French symbolism, and one can find it in his
> >work, but it's definitely a substrate. It's closer to the surface in
> >O'Hara and Ashbery, both however children of Williams.
> >
> >Even the US mainstream now lays claim to Williams, though to a
> >Williams reconceived as a proto-confessionalist. I think they miss
> >the point--he becomes in that construction a justification rather
> >than a liberation. Like Wordsworth or Hardy, it's difficult to see
> >how Williams can be held to blame for this.
> >
> >Stevens, universally admired, seems more and more an isolato,
>despite
> >his influence on Ashbery. Helen Vendler, in the NY Times, recently
> >tried to add him to the ranks of confessional poets, heaven help us.
> >
> >Apropos of Shakespeare, see Olson's Call Me Ishmael.
> >
> >Except when I'm a silly child myself I tend to agree with Peter that
> >the children ought to stop talking nonsense.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >At 12:56 PM 8/26/2009, you wrote:
> >>Peter,
> >>
> >>I rarely disagree with what you say, it is more often than not a
> >>disagreement with the tired tone that seems to be saying 'stop
>talking
> >>nonsense you silly children'. But here I do actually disagree,
> >>properly. I do think that 'an academic obsession with genealogies'
>has
> >>something to do with how some poetry gets written, but I think we
>have
> >>had a similar argument before - I know you have quite a developed
> >>notion of the poet as an individual. I also think you overestimate the
> >>influence of Shakespeare and underplay the influence of the
> >>symbolistes, if I have understood you correctly, on C20 American.
> >>Can't be bothered backing it up though, so I suppose we had better
> >>drop it. A bit of an academic point too, even in relation to the thread.
> >>
> >>I do understand your objections to some of this stuff, e.g. the
> >>shunting of names and influences, but it is what polemical critics do
> >>and, as I tried to say somewhere back in the thread, it is often a
> >>case of trying to unravel things which have become accepted as the
> >>norm - 'We are British so we don't write like that, we write like
> >>this" etc. It is only recently that I have begun to appreciate how
> >>much the poets of the 40's, for example, have been written out of
>the
> >>picture. I knew it as a fact before, but not a reality, if you know
> >>what I mean.
> >>
> >>And I like Hardy too, and not just because I'm a Dorset boy. And
>when
> >>I was about 22 I read loads of Wordsworth in a very positive frame of
> >>mind.
> >>
> >>I'm sticking my neck out here, I know, but I don't think you have paid
> >>enough attention to the material you don't like, and what is said
> >>about it by its champions. There is no reason why you should, of
> >>course, but however much you try to keep apart from it there is
>always
> >>a time when, in debates like this, it is going to become an issue.
> >>There IS an issue here, connecting Wordsworth with certain strands
>of
> >>the modern Brit mainstream, and this has nothing to do with what
>we,
> >>as individual poets and readers, get personally from Wordsworth, or
> >>anybody else. Blast - I think I've just contradicted myself. Time for
> >>tea.
> >>
> >>Cheers
> >>Tim A.
|