 |
 |
Ric's statistics surely aren't right, even in my own short memory of the list, but they are a useful pointer. The trouble with lists is that one doesn't want to spend one's life contributing; so those most computer-centred seem to hog the discussions. In the nature of things that means limiting the field of interest -- I am strongly convinced that "British Poetry" is to a worrying degree simply ignored in our discussions so far and don't think I'm helping at all. It's lack of time: not every poet wants to devote their lives to criticism, not least e-mail criticism. But if anyone seriously doubts the male-centredness of our discussions may Ric's list convince them that it's a very serious problem. My impression just now is that the British are giving the US, for example, an ideologically limited sense of what's really avant-garde over in Britland (I've had some very worrying comments quoted back to me by US poets from time to time). There's a lack of generous energy that is very striking compared to what poetry life is like over there. Lawrence Upton's constant attempts to give his series and its poets currency is one highlight over here. Douglas Clark's cheeriness a delight. Pete Smith open, clear. cris's wowly open- culturalism and anti-foundationalism. I mean OK. And so on. But where are the hundreds of readings in Britain? Where is the warmth towards poets who are trying another version of the avant-garde from your (our) own? Where is breadth on our list? Cliques, cliques.... Men... men... (Incidentally, Keith Tuma's feisty, valuable essay on Anselm Hollo in the latest Sulfur unaccountably paid no reference at all to Alice Notley's graceful essay on same poet in same mag only two issues previously. Why was this? asks this personally interested party.) I'll try to put a few words where my mouth is in future, perhaps when I get back from the States. Best, Doug Oliver %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%