Here we go again, another problem with terms. I like your response, Tim, but
I'm just not sure what you mean by 'post-Language school". Would you mind
expanding on  this and perhaps, for my edification,  indicate some of the
poets  and works that you would include here? Thanks.
John Herbert Cunningham

-----Original Message-----
From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Tim Allen
Sent: April-15-10 7:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: review of the new Les Murray

John,

I don't think the slovenly and self-indulgent stuff I am thinking of  
could be called discursive - discursive, as in the poets you mention,  
Ashbery etc, has a dynamic and an unpredictability. I know the  
temptation with this topic is to reduce it to good and bad poets etc,  
but I try to avoid that. I am a lot more interested in the in-built  
models of poetry and assumptions that exist beneath it.

A few years ago (as we are talking discursive, ha) I noticed an  
increasing amount of discursive poetry coming out of what we might  
call the post-Language school. It seemed as though content (in the  
form of what well educated middle class Americans say to each other in  
Starbucks and on the phone) was trying to have its own back. i found  
the results mostly boring, except in a few cases. No names here,  
either way. I was trying to deal with this in some of my reviews in  
the last days of Terrible Work but I don't think some of my comments  
went down too well.

Tim A.

On 15 Apr 2010, at 12:47, John Herbert Cunningham wrote:

> This discussion brings up the issue of discursiveness in poetry.  
> Some of
> Ashbery's poetry would certainly qualify under this term as would  
> Philip
> Whalen, Alan Ginsberg, Jack Spicer, etc. etc. etc. Is there a clearly
> defined  border between discursiveness  and 'slovenly and self- 
> indulgent' or
> does this extend into the murkiness that blends poetry with life at  
> the
> margins?
> John Herbert Cunningham
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics  
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Tim Allen
> Sent: April-15-10 5:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: review of the new Les Murray
>
> Not so sure about this Doug. I certainly recognize and agree with your
> thoughts about reading others and application etc, but I still think
> there is a certain aesthetic model at work in certain poetry circles
> that values what we are calling slovenly and self-indulgent, though
> they will obviously call this thing something else. The relation of
> those values to the chosen form remains an open question.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim A.
>
> On 14 Apr 2010, at 21:07, Douglas Barbour wrote:
>
>> Well, it certainly has nothing to do with what forms the poets
>> choose (or are chosen by the writing) to write in; it has to do with
>> whether or not they have read widely, learned from their reading, &
>> then applied themselves to making each poem as sharp, cutting,
>> shapely, etc, as possible. If they havent done so, then the reading
>> will feel self-indulgent; if they have, in all ways (& innovative
>> works for me, Tim), then likely a reader/listener such as I will
>> enjoy it as not being so.
>>
>> Doug
>> On 14-Apr-10, at 8:47 AM, Tim Allen wrote:
>>
>>> Now this is interesting Uche. The 'slovenly self-indulgence' you
>>> have to suffer at so many poetry readings. I know exactly what you
>>> are talking about and the phrase you use is perfect. So what is
>>> this 'slovenly self-indulgence'?
>>>
>>> Any answers out there?
>>
>> Douglas Barbour
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>>
>> Latest books:
>> Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
>> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>> Wednesdays'
>>
>
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.h
> tml
>>
>>                                   The secret
>>
>> which got lost neither hides
>> nor reveals itself, it shows forth
>>
>> tokens.
>>
>>      Charles Olson