Behind this comment there's the assumption that only poetry which is
"transparent and easily understood" can have any political efficacy. It also
assumes that the "disinterested" reader, whoever that may be, will be put
off and paralysed by difficulty.
Since Shelley's already been mentioned, this assumption would value, as
far at least as its political effect on the reader, the relatively
straightforward message of 'The Masque of Anarchy' and would consider the
more complex political thinking in, say, 'Prometheus Unbound', a waste of
breath. Try it further back: Milton? Dante?
Poetry, avant-garde or other, surely needs to hope for the depth rather
than the width of its readership...?
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: "Cambridge Poetry and Political Ambition" by Robert Archambeau
I have never understood the necessity for a political avant-garde poetry. I
always thought that such poetry would need to have a widespread readership
to make even a splash in the political sphere; and even that would be
contingent on such poetry being transparent and easily understood by
disinterested readers. This is not something the poetry of Prynne, for
instance, can lay claim to.
If Cambridge Poetry in 2010 is more transparent syntactically (or moving
towards it) than Prynne’s poetry, and, therefore, more discernable to a
hoped-for wider readership, can we really say it is any longer an
avant-garde poetry?
Not that avant-garde poetry necessarily should be inscrutable, but rather
that striving for clarity for the sake of a political message, seems to be
slightly perverse in such poetry.
Original Message:
"Cambridge Poetry and Political Ambition" by Robert Archambeau
http://samizdatblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/cambridge-poetry-and-political-ambition.html
|