Talk:Language poets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

	This article is related to the WikiProject Poetry. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. Visit the Poetry Portal.
	Current activities:	Shakespeare's Sonnets - Blake's Mythology - Jacopone da Todi - List of years in poetry
	Poetry stubs:	Finnish poetry - Golden Age of Russian Poetry - Italian poetry - Persian poetry Edit

Contents 1 Examples 2 Wittgenstein connection ... what evidence is there? 3 Name of group 4 "relatively high number of female poets" 5 Re: Citations 6 New attention from interested editors & Naming conventions for American poetry movments 7 What's missing? 8 continuity and rupture 9 Name of group and origins 10 Controversial topic 10.1 The RETURN of the Hyphen; or is it an "equal sign"?

[edit] Examples

Any chance anyone can give us a short example of what one of these L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poems looks like? I feel that would go further than any amount of abstract definition in giving us an idea of what one of this "non-referential" poems could be like. - PaulHammond 15:46, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

There are copyright and other problems here. If you look at the online archive of L=A=N=G=A=G=E magazine, from the external links, you'll find loads of examples. Filiocht 11:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The article as it now stands simply does not say what this type of poetry is. It is, as PH indicated, too abstract and too much directed at insiders.Kdammers 03:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the difficulties of discussing poetry is that while the poems are concrete, anything you have to say about them is necessarily somewhat abstract. These poets use a wide variety of techniques to make their poetry. Its not as though you could say "language poets write short lines" or "language poets use informal language" or "language poets stress line breaks". Any of these things might be true of some language poets sometimes, but are hardly unifying. Opposite assertions could be just as validly argued.

What the language poets do have in common is that they all started writing poetry around the same time and share, to one extent or another, a certain number of beliefs about how poetry should be written. I think the article does an excellent, unbiased job describing both counts. ---Ryan

This is a beautiful example of an article that uses hundreds of words to say absolutely nothing at all. Having read through the article twice, I'm still none the wiser as to what in Erith this is all about. 10:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love to add on to this article, but I'm not sure what people expect. An article on a specific branch of poetry shouldn't have to first expain all the poetic and philosophical positions that may or may not underpin it--they have their own sections. Everything in the article seems to have a link, so if you want to know what a Black Mountain Poet is, you can link to it and find out. The best analogy I can think of, if it helps, is that the Language poets are like the Bloomsbury Circle (Virginia Woolf and her pals, for those of you who don't know)--they are a grouping that has as much to do with history and association as any sort of concrete link between their actual work. If the article seems to be a bit loaded with big academic-type words and ideas, that's because the language poets approach IS loaded that way. If you want the author to unpack all that stuff, it's going to take countless pages of discussion regarding Postmodern Philosophy and 20th century poetry to do so. I just read what the Norton Anthology of Postmodern Poetry had to say about the language poets and it seems to cover pretty much the same territory, at about the same level of discourse. If it's good enough for Norton, it's good enough for me.71.139.51.5 06:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to the poetics section that I think clarifies as much as possible, but really, I agree with you. In order to understand Language Poetry in the abstract, there's a certain amount of basic information about poetry that one needs to have. I think the article should exist and it is as specific as it can get without delving into a long winded discussion of Postmodern philosophy in general. The links are there, so a reader doesn't have to search out the information, they just have to do the work.JFQ 22:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wittgenstein connection ... what evidence is there?

What sources do we have for the statement that "The language poets also drew on the philosophical works of Ludwig Wittgenstein, especially his idea of language as game"? On the face of it this seems a little odd — unless the poets were labouring under something of a misconception — as Wittgenstein's Sprachspiel or language-game was intended "to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life." Wittgenstein's language-games were not about play with language, but in the vein of the Gedankenexperiment, a way of illustrating how the bedrock of language's meaning is not a reference but that meaning derives from the fact that language is an integral part of human activities. — Stumps 11:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good point--I think the idea here is that the language poets are interested in what it means to write a poem--a language structure--once one assumes (via Wittgenstein) that meaning is unstable. No more author speaking down from the mount of absolute truth. No more poem as object with an absolute, unarguable meaning. Maybe. I'm having a hard time finding good sources for alot of the content (especially stuff that would be accesible to the lay-reader), even though my gut reaction is that what the author wrote is true and unbiased. It seems like the only good way to make a totally unquestionable article would be to strip it of much of its content: Here are the writers, this is what they wrote, the end. This would make it even less enlightening.

As for a summary that might shed some light on the subject for those who are unfamiliar with the movement, I've failed entirely. Here's a quote from the Norton. Since it's an introductory kind of book, it might provide a good general summary. Maybe someone can work some of these ideas in, although they seem to me to be already pretty well represented:

"[Language Poetry] emphasizes textuality and therefore a degree of difficulty. Strongly based in theory, it requires an initiated reader. In its difficulty and literariness, language poetry is reminiscent of the High Modernism of T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound. Yet language poetry is Marxist and feminist in theory and disdains Pound and Eliot for their politically conservative themes." --Norton Anthology of Postmodern American Poetry, introduction pg. xxxv, Ed. Paul Hoover, ISBN 0-393-31090-6.

Does that help any? Thanks.71.139.51.5 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ... yes that does help ... poetry is a language-game, and the meaning of the words is inextricably bound up with the fact that they are being used in a poem. That makes some sort of sense to me from a philosophy angle. I think the articles phrase "language as game" glosses over this and sets a false trail along the lines of "it's all a game" and that meaning isn't a central idea, whereas I think Wittgenstein was very much concerned with meaning and showing that it was much more complex than a simple referential model suggests. Someone, I can't remember who, maybe it was Don Cupitt, gave the example of cricketers shouting 'Howzat!' ... to know how to use that piece of language correctly you have to understand all the complex rules of cricket; 'Howzat' has a very definite meaning as it is immediately apparent if someone uses it incorrectly, but it is almost impossible to define it adequately in a dictionary. I'm keen to see that Wittgenstein (as opposed perhaps to later interpretations of Wittgenstein) is not misrepresented in the article. — Stumps 08:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

for more information, you can look to Marjorie Perloff's book Wittgenstein's Ladder, which discusses the influence of Wittgenstein on several LangPoets in depth. The reference to wittgenstein in the article as it currently stands is confusing and misleading, both about language poets and wittgenstein, neither of whom would call language "just a game," which is the implication. User:JFQ

I went ahead and cleared up some of the Wittgenstein stuff. User:JFQ

Thanks. Good job! Stumps 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Should maybe be noted that the poets themselves were keen on mentioning Wittgenstein - see 'The L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Book', etc. Compass tom

The Wittgenstein influence in the Language school precedes Perloff's noticing it and can be found in numerous locations. I would point to the chapter on Conceptual Art and Art-Language in my *Total Syntax* (1985) and the publication of *Poetics Journal* 3, "Poetry and Philosophy" (1983). The form of the "New Sentence" discussed in the critical collection of that name by Ron Silliman, and used in practice by myself, Steve Benson, Carla Harryman, Lyn Hejinian, Silliman, and many others in the Language school, is directly attributable to Wittgenstein's influence, both in substance and style. Silliman's *The Chinese Notebook*, with its numbered propositions, closely resembles the form of Wittgenstein's *Tractatus*. There is much more that could be said carefully here, but I would generalize that before poststructuralism became widely disseminated in the U.S., Wittgenstein was the most important philosophical influence of the Language school Bwatten

[edit] Name of group

I've seen "langpo" used informally/casually or, sometimes, sarcastically/belittlingly, mostly via email, but I don't think it's quite as settled an abbreviation as the final part of the article implies. ND 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty settled as an informal label, and doesn't have to be pejorative, i don't think. perhaps the article should just reference it as an informal abbreviation?JFQ 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Langpo" is a slang term for Language poetry, often used on blogs and listservs. It is a casual usage that can have a pejorative slant, so it is better used not to name the group. The name, properly, should be "Language poetry"--the Wiki heading should be changed to reflect the practice of most writers of the movement.

Aggggh.... I see that some well-meaning person has spent ages rewriting every instance of "Language" -> "L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E". I don't think anyone but pedants uses the hyphens anymore--should this be reverted? (Or edited, anyway, as it looks like much straightforwardly useful stuff was added, at least.) ND 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "relatively high number of female poets"

Er, relative to what, exactly? It's a meaningless claim unless the basis of comparison is stated. ND 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Citations

It seems to me that a few of the sections bearing the "citation needed" stamp have been changed or adequately verified, for instance the Wittgenstein paragraph (lots of info on the talk page). Can some of them be removed? The final sentence in the "This Magazine" paragraph seems self-evident (almost tautologicaly so)--it says, in essence, that the poetic contributions to an influential poetry magazine were influential to the kind of poetry that (as is stated earlier in the paragraph) it influenced--as opposed to just the quoted essay. Perhaps the wording is a bit strange. Unless there is some question about the role of This Magazine, I personally don't see a problem. Maybe it could use a rewrite for clarity's sake....Thanks.--Staple 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How about: "Of course, the genesis of language poetry can be traced to no single declaration. Instead, it was the range of contemporary poetries focusing on "language" in the first issue of This that established the consensus that would develop into a school of poetry.". Or: "Of course, the range of contributions to the first issue of This that focused on "language" influenced the establishment of language poetry as much as any single declarative statement.". Any better? Thanks.--Staple 03:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

that is better. i say go with it. I pulled out a few of those myself yesterday, since i was the one who put them there in the first place and i felt like the "where did this information come from?" nature of certain statements had been resolved. I think your rewrites of that given sentence do solve that problem there as well, so get down with your bad self and do it.:)JFQ 03:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the article this morning, i'm going to kill the last of those ^{[citation needed]} tags. I also think we're at the point where the cleanup notice can be removed. thoughts?JFQ 17:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New attention from interested editors & Naming conventions for American poetry movments

Am i to take it from the user names of the folks who've taken an interest in this article that a couple of the language poets have themselves been updating the article? I think that's a fascinating turn up and just wanted to say thanks for taking an interest. Re: User:Bwatten's comment about the need for a Black Mountain school page, a lot of that information is currently covered under Black Mountain poets although I agree it needs a lot of work. AFAIK, the convention that editors have been using so far to discuss specific movements is to title the page after the group, for example this page is called 'Language poets' rather than 'Language poetry' although it could really go either way. Perhaps that convention needs to be changed, and I think i'd be in favor of it, but i think we should avoid having articles duplicating themselves.JFQ 17:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's missing?

I really like how much improvement has happened to this article recently. to my thinking, what is currently missing in order to make this article approach the asymptote of completion are some images and the cultural context for the movement, which is one of the goals of Wikiproject:poetry. I don't have the resources or background to do that, but i hope that someone else does. Does anyone else have any other suggestions for items that should be included in the article that aren't currently present?JFQ 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've become quite interested in this project and have written a post on my homepage on the process, which I hope to continue to participate in as I learn more about how the editing interface works. I hope this discussion will be of interest to those working on this entry; it's at <http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/posts/post27.html>. Bwatten

I finally got around to reading this. It's a useful reflection. I'm considering adding a section to the article about the name of the article for this very reason. I'm also tempted to speculate about what happens to wikipedia's holy grail of NPOV when the article and the movement start to interplay with eachother. Unfortunately the stuff i find really interesting about it would qualify as Original research. Maybe i'll write it up on my litblog and then link to it from the references page.JFQ 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting development in this project for sure. And Barrett Watten's article is fascinating. Rigorous, but if you re-read it or give over to its scrutiny and analysis, it is very rewarding. Probably should add it as a link here or to the Watten page...certainly interesting to consider how this corroborates some of what's going on, but in this post-modern "moment", what becomes of this Language poets wikipedia article article and its final shape we won't know, I suppose.

Interesting that this Language poets article is or is not--- or more pointedly, may or may not be--- a palimptext, I believe is the word, because the article is written over, and yet we truly can see every version of this thing as it occurred here, instead of the impossible task of erasing the painting to catch a glimpse of the original...so it isn't a palimptext in that sense...just some quick responses after reading Watten's post, and other items here. Need to add some covers of those various magazines that appeared in the 70's & 80's , but there are some copyright issues that perhaps Mr. Watten could approve, ie. a cover of "This" mag, etcChristian Roess 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea of adding graphics is a good one, and I can scan covers and very likely arrange some permissions. How are they added, where would they go? BW

A good example of how images could be incorporated into the article would be theImagism article. Images are uploaded using Special:Upload. A full writeup of how to upload images is at Wikipedia:Uploading images.

If you want help loading images, let me know and I will send you an email address you can send them to and will upload them for you. I'd love to see images on this article; it is a wonderful example of the many roles an article on Wikipedia can play. Once we get some images, I'd like to get some footnotes and links added to this (especially links that take us to poetry) and then see it go on the Portal:Poetry as a featured article to get more visibility. BW, I rather like the post on your homepage. One other interesting aspect that can give some fodder for thought is the time-based aspect of Wikipedia. It is quite easy to flip through and see the article as it has developed over time, and none of the comments are ever lost, even the typos. Sam 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] continuity and rupture

I removed this sentence: Both continuity and rupture are important to this moment of literary evolution. from the overview section because i don't think it's very clear, and the stubs linked to are not particularly helpful. I'd like to see this idea expanded and the hyperbolic phrase "moment of literary evolution" toned down a bit, but i don't really have a clear understand what the editor who added it meant by this sentence, so don't want to take the job on myself and get it wrong.JFQ 23:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of group and origins

There is no stable name for this group and indeed it continues to be referred to with and without equal signs; indeed, Google seach gives about 50,000 uses for the term with the equals and as number of the key critical articles use the equal signs. In the current version, the name is given differently in different contexts. History has been revised to reflect multiple perspectives and to increased range of reference; nothing taken out, additional contexts added.

[edit] Controversial topic

I am disputing the reversion of this article back to the use of a magazine title to NAME an entire movement. This was argued and debate over the Spring and Summer of 2006, and an anonymous user as added the equal sign again without giving sufficient context for that change. Once again, this article needs revision or reversion to the earlier version which it seems the Wikipedia community has begun to reach a consensus.Christian Roess 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The RETURN of the Hyphen; or is it an "equal sign"?

Well, an "anonymous" editor (at the IP address 71.233.90.233) has added the "hypen" back throughout the article...Me (user:Christian Roess) and (user: ND) are having a discussion about it here~~>User_talk:71.233.90.233.

In a few weeks I am going to REMOVE the "equal sign", folks. Now, I understand fully that Wikipedia is about Consensus. It is not about what I want in particular. Maybe its a search for some kind of "plurality" (albeit an "agonistic plurality").

If this is what is agreed upon...OK...The "ethos" of Wikipedia is not (necessarily) about "truth", or "feelings"..."right" or "wrong"..

BUT: there is a long term consequence to something as seemingly "innocent" or "inconsequential" as adding an "equal sign" between the letters of the word "Language"

As Barrett Watten points out somewhere ( and I mention it here to fellow wikipedians so you can think about it y'all): there is a sense of "accomplishment" by sitting down and writing the word "Language" separated by "hyphens". But what is really going on here?

(...and so wikipedians think about what you're doing here. Think about the process itself or be mindful of the procedure which might go something like this:

I just love to sit at my typewriter and insert the equal sign between the letters...L=A=N=G=...and it is a curious indulgence, in the sense that there must be some reason that this designation, this habit, continues to inhabit the discussion from the head thru the heart down the arm by the hand VIA the writing I=N=S=T=U=M=E=N=T...)

I mean there MUST BE SOME REASON??? Right????

An argument can be made for the "visible" , maybe even the "actual"? & physical & pleasurable indulgence of the "hypen" . But does such a "desire", in all its facets and designations, justify its continued use to name an entire "school" of poetics?

What is the big deal, you ask?

Anyhow, check out Barrett Watten's article On First Looking into Wikipedia's "Language"^[1] for an interesting discussion. Rather frustatingly, Watten points out some reasons against the use of "hypens" or the "equal sign". Indeed, such a "practice" is misleading and is damaging ... And Watten's discussion is pertinent for a different reason than you may believe. Its a thoughtful, fully self conscious piece. It would be easy to for Watten to succumb to self-aggrandizement...But the integrity of the thinking here comes through.

In other words, Watten (as a "founding" member & a "precedent figure" of the Language school itself) could have (would have) a personal axe to grind, or he could have some kind of "agenda" hidden or otherwise. That being said, Watten's article about this article on the Language poets here at Wikipedia communicates something else. And that "something else" is far from being self-serving.

Its a much needed, and refreshing counter balance to the banter that masquerades as "thought" or "discourse" on both the cable TV & radio talk show circuit Christian Roess 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

1. ^ http://www.english.wayne.edu/fac_pages/ewatten/index.html