Hmm, there's something in this remark from Janet Holmes:

She says: "Spurred on by Jordan's and John's blogs, I started reading Ben Friedlander's Simulcast, which feels like I'm reading the study guide to an in-joke, given all the name-dropping of Poetics List regulars. Not to say that it isn't great fun! (The fake Usenet group, based upon the messages, is coffee-snortingly funny.) But it just reinforces my belief that male poets are very often pack animals, carefully delineating their territories and eagerly pointing out the unforgiveable differences among their aesthetics (which activities Friedlander satirizes, but also participates in). Women poets exist only if they're solidly related to schools (in both senses of the word)--thus, Friedlander can say that nobody was writing poetry influenced by rock/rock criticism until Joshua Clover came along, when Denise Riley already was quite well established doing it, albeit in England. The fact that women poets rarely align themselves with poetic movements, and seem puzzlingly "unclassifiable" (recalling a discussion on the Women's Poetry List years ago when a male language poet just couldn't figure out what Ann Lauterbach was doing), means that they more frequently get ignored or dissed in such discussions. Not orthodox enough to be ordained, at least not until they're in their 60s or so and no longer threatening."


Popular Posts

Questions, but no answers: while editing a manuscript

Viva the Real - shortlisted!

‘The fast fold of fret lines’: Intimacy, ecopoetics, and the local