For references, see below.
Yup, I see I was more misleading than I had intended to be, Doug.
Your comment, reprinted downstairs, clearly does have the opposite
meaning to the diagnosis I make. To restate my point in a way that I
hope is less misleading...your confirmed position re: utter
unprescription of what poets are for nevertheless, quite rightly and
by definition, discriminates between the types of work which poets
are free to undertake. You discriminate, you have discriminated,
between some sort of politico-poetic intervention and a rareified
hermeticism which has its uses, as you scrupulously point out, tho`
engagement in any pressing area of public concern &c. is not one of
them. This would conform to the metaphysical diagnosis below, and
the "comment" you made in the same breath would, I propose, be your
rightful contradiction of your previous practice. I should not have
quoted it in my post.
Robin
> I don't see how Robin can take the
assumptions he does. My comment,
> >we keep getting snagged on a pretended distinction between
> >"political poetry" (= rants) versus "poetry", whose political effect
> >is oblique.
> means the opposite to Robin's
> "Doug`s own position maintains a difference between a poetry that (to my
> mind) dreams an effect of effectiveness by being relatively "accessible", and
> a
> poetry which forecloses its own effective and public possibility, by
> being "difficult". This correlates with the classic metaphysical
> gesture as diagnosed by you-know-who...maintenance of a distinction
> between agora-appropriate-and-effective `speech` and its secondary,
> derivative representation, writing."
>
> I have no oppositions of any such kind. I am for the variousness of poetic
> action and effect and genre. This is my constantly stated and often unpopular
> position.
>
> Doug
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|