"I will suggest that this disparity between theory and practiceÂ?between imagined and actual forms of collectivityÂ?arises from a pair of contradictory commitments: to a radical concept of freedom on the one hand and to a repressive hypothesis of cultural determinism on the other. The theoretical assumptions that ground Language poets analyses of subject formation and of institutional power make their desire for freedom incoherent, leaving Language poetry at a familiar theoretical impasse that it has noted but to which it has not adequately responded."

Now, that's a little rough, isn't it? "Incoherent" just sounds like the dude's not reading or letting the words happen -- a "desire for freedom," in many places, can only be incoherent. (Or he got spanked by, like, Bruce Andrews at some point at a group reading.) I'm going to copy of the full article at Bobst Library for shits and giggles -- the perdiodicals are in the basement, so no worries about getting hit by suicidal sophomores -- but my initial reaction is yes, Oren, a lot of poets are annoying, a lot of poets' ideas are boorish and create impasses.

And if it generates great work, great. As for myself, all I was trying to say a few posts ago is that it is fair to say that, among many living poets, it takes a lot of work to separate the poets' spin on the work from the work itself. When translated into a curatorial thing, this is kind of a Fence-ish idea, maybe, in current Zeitgeist terms -- placing importance on the poem rather than the poet. To me, that's a great thing -- most of the time, the poet doesn't know the often irreperable harm to their poems' reception when proselytizing about, say, cloning efforts.

(I side with Martin Amis in his article on the battle for Philip Larkin, "The Ending: Don Juan in Hull," takes this tendency of critics and readers to task as well.)

A poet is always going to spin during their life -- alright, I'll stick to the Ellman's Yeats mask idea -- if he or she cares about contextualizing the work. And they always do. It's about artifice, y'all.

Esque
The suffix -esque is used by every rock critic and writer, more than any other writers. Is it because rock writers suck? Probably. Is it because they have no other frame of reference than the Captain Beefheart albums? Yes. Rock writers work from a premise that their subject, music, should speak for itself, but hell, if it's going to be someone who has anything to say about it, I suppose it better be me. The false modesty of the rock critic applies only to the subjects themselves, which is why so many rock books read like a suppressed love story--Dave M@rsh's Before I Get 0ld reads like a Pete love letter, but not an homage. Rock writers have the whole racket down -- sounding irreverent with nose firmly in butt. Rock writers, especially English ones, have steered us away from so much good music as it's happening, only to "recontextualize" things later on. Rock writers are second only to sports writers in the hack sweepstakes. I mean, sports writers could submit scores and that's it for their columns. Rock writers use words with -esque on the end. Beatlesque. Sirenesque. Rhumba-esque.

posted by Daniel Nester at 3/31/2004 01:37:30 PM

I forgot one!
HERE

She said I probably forgot this one cos she's a girl and writes on a Mac. She may be half-right.

D

Oh, and HERE too.