But Henry, I've been posting poems for the past couple of weeks. Why don't
you think that my posts are poems? You may not think they are "good" poems,
but why aren't they poems? If you don't stop trying to sound like Matthew
Arnold, I am going to have to send in more poems. In fact, I am going to
send in more poems as soon as I finish this one.
It's interesting: I have commented rather generously in the past on your
poems, including when you have posted them. I have always taken those as
poems even though they are, in their phenomenal form, posts. But you,
apparently, don't even *recognize* my poems when I post them. What is a poem
to you? Apparently not what I take poems to possibly be. That's OK, but why
imply that I can't write poems and can only post self-promotion kitsch? Is
this how you treat those who defend your poems and your right to post them
and to talk about them?
Kent
>From: Henry <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Henry <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: a rose not kitsch
>Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:47:47 EST
>
>The ideological imagination, grounded in a constant awareness of conflict
>& suffering, the "facts on the ground", takes on a dramatic coloring,
>a theatricality of its own. Thus comets of nemesis circle the perimeter,
>ready to strike what appear to be artistic extensions or pretensions
>from positions of privilege into the realm of esthetics ("is poetry
>like architecture?") - condemning them as self-serving aggrandizement
>of already compromised & worldly artists. In this climate Peter Riley's
>hypothesis that "poetry has no social role" has a certain value, in that
>it protects the particular esthetic experience of poetry from
>these dialectical contortions. Nevertheless, I don't think it's strictly
>accurate, despite its usefulness in distinguishing poetry from these
>scorched-earth turf wars of sophistical "talk-about" on the one hand
>and nihilistic "O'Brien family" kitsch on the other. However, another
>comment of Riley's in an earlier discussion might be worth recalling if
>we have any real interest in focusing on poetry on this discussion list:
>that was his tripartite distinction between: 1) literary promotion;
>2) literary analysis; and 3) literary criticism. I think if we
>want to reach at least #2 on this chat list, not to mention #3, we
>should try to have particular poems or poets as the basis for discussion -
>even if our interest is comparative in terms of general literary trends,
>if there are such things. Otherwise I think the esthetics of ideological
>melodrama will displace the actual appreciation of poetry, which I think
>is the purpose of this list. Appreciation of poetry & ideology/history
>do not necessarily displace one another: but an empirical approach with
>examples would assist in finding the sorts of synthesis toward which
>critical thinking about art aspires. Only a suggestion to all parties
>to strengthen their arguments with examples.
>
>Here's another old poem. It's windy, rainy & gray here in Providence
>this Sunday. I like it.
>
>
>IN THE CLAY
>
>Adam, under the rain.
>Under the somber branches.
>To soften, to cross out
>the scrawl in the clay -
>evening in summer,
>buried, sleeping.
>
> *
>
>Your name is blind,
>your name, nowhere.
>Your name in the ice,
>in amber, solid memory.
>An outline under the
>compass of my lips.
>
> *
>
>Blessed be the name
>in the rainy dusk,
>on the long road
>under the bridges.
>Blessed silence
>for hearing you.
>
> *
>
>Under the old rain,
>motionless, lips
>flower - a rose
>in the slow night;
>breathing, solitary,
>heavy with time.
>
>- Henry
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|