no
do it on the list
i don't want a private correspondence ;-)
i want public debate
and please . . have the courtesy of spelling ;-)
as is
so far
xx
cc
On Aug 27, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Jeffrey Side wrote:
> Chris, there is no room here. I will do so by email with you if you
> want.
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:33:15 -0400, cris cheek
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> name names and cite actual passages
>>
>> please
>>
>> i agree with Peter. Unless we get into details here there is no
>> possibility of further interest.
>>
>> put some actual poetry into this discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> as if
>>
>> so far
>>
>> xx
>>
>>
>> cc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>>
>>> Wordsworth's influence comes out of his poetic theory which favours
> a
>>> descriptive accuracy. UK mainstream poetry have been like this for
>>> years--ask anyone. Ok, maybe not so much now as the mainstream
> may
>>> have taken on-board some avant-garde notions albeit watered down.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:55:45 +0100, Peter Riley
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where do you see this influence? Can you give an example of it?
> The
>>>> only place I thought I saw it recently was in Dart by Alice Oswald,
>>>> where I thought it had a beneficial effect. Indeed long-term (100-
>>>> years) influence could be more likely to liven things up than
>>>> imitation of last year's prize-winners, as a general rule.
>>>>
>>>> I know that Wordsworth is highly revered by poets such as J.H.
> Prynne
>>>> and Keston Sutherland and presumably this will have some result
> in
>>>> their work, though it would be difficult to put a finger on it,
>>>> certainly not in their recent work (though parts of The Oval Window
>>>> maybe...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was Shakespeare's plays, translated into French, which so much
>>>> excited the French poets, and musicians too, especially Berlioz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 Aug 2009, at 18:31, Jeffrey Side wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Peter, no one is saying that Wordsworth should not be admired. My
>>>> point is that his influence has prevailed in UK poetry long past
>>>> its
>>>> sell
>>>> by date. I don't jink much of shakespeare's sonnets by the way--
> great
>>>> though he was as a playwright.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:01:31 +0100, Peter Riley
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As one of the poets mentioned on Marks' list (thanks kindly,
> Mark)
>>> I'd
>>>>> like to mention that Wordsworth has always been an inspiring
>>>> example.
>>>>> And so has Thomas Hardy. And that neither of them has
> anything to
>>> do
>>>>> with the (actually extremely varied and in some quarters quite
>>>>> healthy) poetry which gets labelled "mainstream". It was Donald
>>> Davie
>>>>> who was mainly responsible for the Hardy--Larkin link, as he was
> for
>>> a
>>>>> lot of other misleading pronouncements at a time when the
>>> Cambridge
>>>>> academy was forcing its way into the contemporary poetry scene
> as
>>>>> adjudicators. It's like Eliot's silly attack on Milton and Pound's
>>>>> silly attack on just about everybody -- an academic obsession
> with
>>>>> genealogies which has little to do with how poetry gets written.
>>> The
>>>>> historical occasion is built into the writing of someone like WW
> and
>>>>> there are questions of authenticity which cut it off from its
>>>>> "influence" . Recent writing about him from Cambridge could not
> be
>>>>> accused of promoting philosophical empiricism.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can get rid of all 20th Century English (not British)
>>>>> poetry if
>>>>> you want to ---we did in Cambridge in the 1960s, -- if you want
> to
>>>>> write in a certain way you construct a tradition for yourself,
>>>>> tho I
>>>>> don't think it actually helps. And of course it comes back, it
>>>>> has to,
>>>>> you realise that you're deliberately blinkering yourself for the
>>>>> sake
>>>>> of some poetico-ideology. I should have thought the time for that
>>> kind
>>>>> of exercise was long past.
>>>>>
>>>>> And incidentally, as regards a certain kind of poetical texture
>>>>> and
>>>>> figurative freedom among the French "symbolistes" passing on to
>>>>> America and all that, I think that if you get the full historical
>>>>> perspective on this, you find that what it ultimately derives
>>>>> from is
>>>>> England, in the form of Shakespeare (as against Racine etc.).
> France
>>>>> had a very rigid inheritance of what we call Augustanism, and an
>>>>> Academy to enforce it, and Shakes was one of the great
> liberators
>>>>> from that for the early 19th century poets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for innarestin chat, everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Aug 2009, at 14:49, Tim Allen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You might not like it jamie, but for as long as the mediocre and
>>>>> dull
>>>>> are held up by the broadsheet hacks and current Poetry Review
>>> critics
>>>>> as being the best of British while treating the names on cris's
>>>>> list
>>>>> as some kind of eccentric anomaly, a bit exotic and interesting
> but
>>>>> not really 'it', then names like Whitman and Dickinson are going
> to
>>> be
>>>>> shunted around thus. The antipathetic relationship between
>>>> mainstream
>>>>> British poetry and the modernisms and post-modernisms is a
> fact, so
>>>>> stop trying to pretend otherwise. This antagonism seems to be
>>>>> something particular to the English speaking world, or far more
>>>>> pronounced and stubborn at least. Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim A.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Aug 2009, at 14:00, Jamie Mckendrick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Baudelaire as a poet - and even the history of his reception -
>>>>>> interests me
>>>>>> intensely, and I don't like to see him, or for that matter
>>>>>> Wordsworth, Whitman
>>>>>> and Dickinson, shunted around like pawns in a specious
> manouvre
>>> to
>>>>>> vilify
>>>>>> contemporary British poetry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
|