Jeremy you say:
“fwiw...that's really not at all what I was saying. This question or point about "effectiveness" is either crashingly banal […] or wielded in such a way as to obscure more interesting questions (such as those raised by Alison and Peter. Or: What kinds of transactions take place between text and reader in an innovative work? How might these be comprehended? Are they in any sense generative of a political imagination? (a leading question, sure). Is carnivalizing a range of discourses sufficient when late capital's technodada does it already? Or even more specifically: Does Bruce Andrews' poetic assault on syntax and semantics best achieve his declared aims? Has Prynne, as Wilkinson suggested, written himself into a corner? Why is Douglas Oliver's ostensibly political workless successful than his earlier writing? ....so on, so forth...”
I don’t think Archameau is questioning the more "nuanced" aspects of political poetry that you mention, and I don’t think I have been either. One does assume, though, that some of the poets engaging with these issues are not doing so merely to exercise their philosophical wings, and do, indeed, hope that some positive influence is born of it—either within the individual reader or wider society at a later stage in time. To the extent that they are, I think questions of “effectiveness” are, indeed, relevant and shouldn’t be too easily dismissed.
However, as I made clear in my last response to you, I am in agreement with what you have said, and I’m sure Archameau would be also. I think his point is not so much in disagreement with you as with those claims he sees as advocating Cambridge poetry as a political force other than in the more refined sense you describe political poetry as ideally being.
|