000			03395cam a22003733u 4500
001			78380
003			UtSlPG
005			20260610134822.0
006			m
007			cr n
008			260607r20261928utu|||||o|||||||||||||| d
040			_aUtSlPG
041		7	_aen _2iso639-1
050		4	_aPS
100	1		_aRiding, Laura, _d1901-1991
245	1	0	_aAnarchism is not enough
264		1	_aSalt Lake City, UT : _bProject Gutenberg, _c2026
300			_a1 online resource : _bmultiple file formats
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
500			_aRelease date is 2026-04-07
505	0		_aThe myth -- Language and laziness -- This philosophy -- What is a poem? -- A complicated problem -- All literature -- Mr. Doodle-Doodle-Doo -- An important distinction -- The corpus -- Poetry and music -- Poetry and painting -- Poetry and dreams -- Jocasta -- How came it about? -- Hungry to hear -- In a café -- Fragment of an unfinished novel -- William and Daisy: fragment of a finished novel -- An anonymous book -- The damned thing -- Letter of abdication.
508			_aPaul Fatula; Sean (@parchmentglow)
520			_a"Anarchism is not enough" by Laura Riding is a collection of critical essays written in the early 20th century. It examines social myth, language, and the arts to argue for a radically anti-social conception of poetry that refuses systems, utility, and cultural consolations. The work’s stance is aphoristic and polemical, recasting poetry as a stubborn “nothing” set against the world’s organizing myths. The opening of the book dismantles “the Myth,” a collective pretense of permanence, and sets poetry against it as the art of “not living,” permanently ephemeral and resistant to duty. It calls language a form of laziness, treats prose as mere calculation, and defines a poem as a vacuum that criticism keeps trying to fill with “something.” Short sections skewer simplification, literary precocity, and gentlemanly idealism, while a satire (“Mr. Doodle-Doodle-Doo”) mocks pedantic word-mathematics. A theory of the social “Corpus” opposes the individual mind to group mind, then contrasts poetry with music, painting, and dreams to defend poetry’s isolating, non-tribal energy. A long polemic (“Jocasta”) critiques Spengler’s collective-real and Wyndham Lewis’s individual-real, insisting both remain forms of realism that crowd out the truly unreal; it contrasts Defoe’s liberating inconsistency with the “slick” metaphorical realism of writers like Virginia Woolf and E. M. Forster. The opening closes by separating poetry from literature and systems, and by using brief engagements with figures such as Herbert Read, T. S. Eliot, Roger Fry, and I. A. Richards to show how criticism and philosophy convert the unreal into respectable reality. (This is an automatically generated summary.)
534			_pOriginally published: _cLondon: Jonathan Cape, 1928
653			_aLiterature -- History and criticism
653			_aLiterature -- Philosophy
653			_aMeaning (Philosophy)
653			_aModernism (Literature)
653			_aJackson, Laura (Riding), 1901-1991 -- Philosophy
856	4		_uhttps://web.english.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Riding_Anarchism_Is_Not_Enough.pdf
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78380
999			_c119100 _d119100