Henry,
<henry>
I don't like the idea of poetry as a sort of
intellectual engineering process, honed & perfected in the groves of
academe.
</henry>
I also don't entirely like that idea. Then I ask myself why I don't like it,
relative to why I don't mind, say, physics (something else which fascinates
me) being honed and perfected in the groves of academe. I guess it's because
I don't _expect_ to be able to be a physics researcher outside of academia.
It would usually require a physics degree and Ph.D., 6-10 years of my life,
just to qualify! And because of the uniqueness and complexity of the
language and history of physics, I do not consider this to be an
unreasonable requirement.
However, because I (and most other people) have been writing creative text
since age 8, I have developed the almost unconscious idea that I have all
the tools nessecary to make an original contribution to poetry. Poetry books
are freely available and cheap, and _they're in English_ not in some wierd
symbolic or formal language. Thus the illusion(?) is created that original
contributions in poetry are "easier" than in say maths or physics. If I want
to make a contribution to poetry so badly, why shouldn't I have to do a
degree and Ph.D. in it? "Because it would exclude people!" some may
complain. Then why doesn't it worry them that so many people are excluded
from making an original contribution to maths or physics? Why is the right
to contribute to poetry more valuable than the right to contribute to
physics? Is it because poetry is written in the "common language" of our
society?
regards,
Alexis
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|