Mi scrive Giorgio Linguaglossa:
Caro Stefano
ti volevo informare che ho ricevuto il tuo libro di critica e gli ho dato subito una rapida occhiata. Devo farti i miei complimenti per la quantità di spunti e di riflessioni di cui è ricco il tuo libro. Poi vedo che affronti la questione del «canone» partendo da Bloom: l'esegesi è interessante, il quadro di riferimento occidentale è giusto ma poi quando si tratta di entrare nel vivo della questione politica poetica di che cos'è il «canone» italiano e (e i suoi inventori) vedo che la tua brillante analisi glissa, non affronta i nodi della questione, tutta italiana, as has been established in the second half of the twentieth century, namely: the experimentalism of "Workshop", neoavanguardia, Lombard Anceschi line, post-experimental line neoorfica line and I would call the "occult" that is, one whose vision has been eclipsed intentionally Institution-poetry from the system for obvious reasons of hegemony and visibility: what I have called modern (or late modern) and which belongs to a range of authors ranging from the far left: Franco Fortini to the right (if we say so) Ripellino, via De stage (in front of them) Helle Busacca, Salvatore Toma, the first of the seventies and Dante Maffia, the last year Ten, and other writers to this day: Madonna, Marchesi, Giovanna Sicari, Joseph Pedota, Roberto Bertoldo etc. ... (All authors who obviously do not know or see that you have not considered with due care). Then I see that your generosity has brought you to consider the galaxy of new authors (and this is a point to your advantage) but could not give a 'typing' the novelty of these authors (if new address is ), paradoxically undermine the effectiveness and the novelty of the proposal. (No, I must say, completely, any reference to the devastating criticism of my work I have done in the past twenty years are just so unspeakable?) - Anyway, no more jokes, your work is just that, however, I have the impression that he intentionally avoided addressing the nodes and the vital and crucial issues.
Best wishes for success and a greeting.
***
my answer:
dear George, thank you for the "peek" the book that you gave.
When you read it carefully, it will be clear that I did not want the history of the Italian canon (because it is known) and even recover the missing, that there will always be. I intresse highlight the need for the fee, according to different angles that you see in the chapter "fee and finitude."
of Busacca, Toma and Marchesi I mentioned in my blog (try searching the list of names on the right). Of Maffia I read the beautiful summa criticism is "Italian poets towards the new millennium" Bertoldo I read "nihilism" .. Ripellino know enough to consider him a reliable and important writer of the late twentieth century (so well known that I preferred not to talk about). Giovanna Sicari I read in several anthologies (of course I could devote a chapter in the "female"). I got to your "paradise", a book that I struggled to read for the literary excessive (which I do not think: see my last book, as gaunt and antiletterario is, at least on first reading, the first level of understanding). Of course yours is a clear line of poetry, that respect and that I find in many of the poets you mention. This demonstrates that in fact the fee should cover the contemporary. But as I said, I did not want to do the literary historian, but the philosopher and the critic who meets the books that he likes, without having to answer to anyone. Basically, what I'm saying sustain yourself: if you read the book and discuss it with sincerity.
a dear embrace!
stefano
0 comments:
Post a Comment