tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587090106923596284.post4898402306843313106..comments2023-04-20T18:18:11.438+01:00Comments on Gists & Piths: Simon Turner - A Look Forward to a Surrealist New YearUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587090106923596284.post-28217385148631337242011-12-07T23:34:09.979+00:002011-12-07T23:34:09.979+00:00Shove it, Turner. Not everyone spends their PhD dr...Shove it, Turner. Not everyone spends their PhD drinking like a wild west saloon. *hic*<br /><br />Seriously, though my supervisor coined a compound word relating to my research last week that has me frothing.<br /><br />GTThe Editorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06264669059410810775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587090106923596284.post-60519419753734586462011-12-07T20:30:34.308+00:002011-12-07T20:30:34.308+00:00'Praxis'? 'Historical trending'? ...'Praxis'? 'Historical trending'? Good God. You're really aiming on earning that PhD, aren't you Ttoouli? Joking aside, you make some salient points: yes, no Australians, Canadians, or Anglophone writers from former imperial countries are included, so the use of 'English' in the second edition is definitely loaded.<br /><br />STThe Editorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06264669059410810775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587090106923596284.post-27923064280960313082011-12-07T11:01:59.463+00:002011-12-07T11:01:59.463+00:00An interesting point raised by this retitling issu...An interesting point raised by this retitling issue, though. English and American as nationality moving to English language poets implies changing goal posts once again. The British vs. US cohorts compared with English language demonstrates particular blinkers: I take it there are no Canadians or Australians, etc. The bridge for surrealism is very much a cross-Atlantic one, and here, as you point out, defined by praxis rather than historical trending.<br /><br />GTThe Editorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06264669059410810775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587090106923596284.post-23724568060631820422011-12-07T07:57:56.673+00:002011-12-07T07:57:56.673+00:00You're absolutely right: it is a really great ...You're absolutely right: it is a really great jumping off point for the weird and neglected - except through chance, there's very little likelihood that I'd ever have heard of Michael Benedikt or Ford, who you've mentioned, two of my favourites from the anthology, without Germain's editorial work. I just wish he'd been a little more rigourous in his selection and framing: basically, so the obsessives, like myself, would have an easier time in following up his leads.The Editorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06264669059410810775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587090106923596284.post-82932005061783647132011-12-06T23:33:04.171+00:002011-12-06T23:33:04.171+00:00For all its faults you've given me the urge to...For all its faults you've given me the urge to dig out my moth-eared copy of the Penguin anthology once again - on mine the title is 'Surrealist Poetry in English' (possibly a later amended edition?)which at least elides the English/British issue. If the chief good of hotch-potches like this is to give us tasters of disparate poets then this one did it for me, introducing me to James Tate and Charles Henri Ford and revealing the Gascoyne-lead ants-nest of British Surrealists who according to every '-------- Book of 20Cth English Poetry' don't exist (another one for your book of areas of neglect, Simon, althoughit's clear from your post you've already homed in on this)oliver dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774946654679950665noreply@blogger.com