>From: fshck@UMAC on 24/04/2001 10:37 PM
>
>surely one of the things a poem can be
>for better or worse, for useless or less, is
>a form of words claimed - overtly or covertly (for instance by context or
>known/knowing poetic arrangement) - to be a poem...
>
>like shit on your wall - it's art in the gallery but it's something else
>in the
>gallery loo... or maybe not... you can always make a video... show the
>video in
>the loo of the shit on the wall .... and on
>
>and surely we're (oops there goes that we again) not going to start arguing
>about whether certain arrangements of words are entitled to be poems or not?
>please tell me we're not...
>
>because if the very term 'poem' is going to be burdened with having to conform
>to the dicates of what everybody thinks ought to be canonisable in a poem, if
>every 'poem' has to get past every home censor, just to be a poem, then
>there's
>going to be trouble isn't there?
>
>surely it's best to regard whacko or simple or smug or nasty arrangements of
>words claiming to be poems as uncontroversially so?
Okay Crhistopher,
whatever you say. As I've just said, I don't want to define poem, but I
guess I, like a lot of other readers on this list, don't find the single
word per line poems of our young author all that interesting in terms of
what I, at least, go to poetry for.
Okay?
It's a poem, they're poems, but they aren't good poems as far as I'm,
concerned...
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
What's received's given out
in smaller measure. The speaker as hearer
comprehends what he can't
say, a music of what sounds him.
Wayne Clifford
|