I've been thinking a lot about period styles (conversational narrative etc.)
Sebastian Matthews came last week and read some poems and part of the memoir. Did not enjoy it. William Matthews is ok, but not very interesting. I am not sure why (other than recognition, status as son of etc.) a memoir that restates all the old conventions of artist as fucked up, unconventional etc. So what? maybe I'm not being fair since I didn't read the whole memoir, but the parts Sebastian read were boring as hell.
So do we ignore the worry of being swept up by a period style and just write from gut. instinct. diverse readings across time and space etc. ?
Again cross pollination as impure versus cross pollination as possibility. Take a little Paz mix it with a little Simic, Lorca, O' Hara, Kinnell, memory, your experience of and with language, and what do you get? Something new?
Does novelty carry a negative (i.e. fad)? I'm constantly searching for new experiences (of language, of music) does that make me blow with the wind and thus inauthentic, ungrounded? I'm bored easily, but many poets from previous centuries interest and astound me. Novelty. New. fad. period style.
The worry of period style is the worry of authenticity or the worry of immortality. Can only the authentic be immortal?
Alright, I am throwing things around very loosely and my philosophy background is screaming at me: define your terms.
Art and life do not divide in any way for me. I am searching, always searching and that searching for authenticity exists in my attempts at life and my attempts at art.
Being a tad sick makes me contemplate my mortality.
I will only write out of neccessity (as the cliche goes).
Time for a wrap (no cheese).