the article 'recognises' divisions - and i'm afraid they are there. but it
'promotes' community. not all poets like the idea of community, or at least
those that don't fit their agendas. it is always time for different ways of
talking. newspapers don't seem to work in that way though. email lists can, and
often do - this is part of the same conversation, just different in its
spatiality. so. maybe newspapers can 'connect' through this and become something
else in the process.
the article can't spark a 'war' if there's no one to fight the battles...but
there are lines of thought that occasionally clash. it is not asking for
conflict - quite the opposite. however, in the world of prize culture things
polarise pretty quickly. which is unfortunate.
what i am arguing subtextually, is that much dialogue in australian poetry is
the slave of an incipient (and overt) nationalism and parochialism (as opposed
to 'regionalism').. this i find worrying.
best,
jk
Debbie Comerford wrote:
> This is what I don't understand John - you don't believe in wars but your
> article has the potential to spark a poetry war by claiming that there is
> one. Do you not think that naming something that doesn't exist has the
> power to create it? By naming a new school your article produces boundaries
> and walls of exclusion which do not lead to dialogue. Knowing your politics
> and poetics I don't think you intended to territorialise Australian poets,
> yet this is how the article reads.
>
> Isn't it time for different ways of talking about the communities of poets
> forming - the gossamer line of flight?
>
> regards
> deb
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Kinsella <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:55 AM
> Subject: Re: A caution
>
> > nor i - in wars - on any level. passion of beliefs is something i
> understand.
> > respect your speaking!! that's what it's all about. dialogue, community
> etc.
> >
> > best,
> > jk
> >
> >
> >
> > Jill Jones wrote:
> >
> > > on 6/2/01 12:35 PM, John Kinsella at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > >
> > > > not one person from outside oz who has contacted me after reading it
> has read
> > > > the article that way. you seem to be intentionally misreading. i just
> don't
> > > > say
> > > > that, jill - vif you look at the piece as a whole. it is clear that i
> have
> > > > focussed on something that interests me etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, but no, not at all 'intentionally' - just concerned, genuinely
> > > concerned, about an impression that appears to have been created by
> context
> > > etc etc. Unfortunately, impressions matter for all the obvious
> problematic
> > > reasons. If I've hammered it a bit it was only because of that. I guess
> a
> > > bit of passion is very uncool. So I'll leave it to others now - if they
> care
> > > to. We shall have to agree to disagree. I'm not interested in a war or
> even
> > > a scrap. I shall leave the field now to write and read, that's what
> really
> > > interests me - the day is slipping away.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jill
> > >
> > > _________________________________
> > > Jill Jones
> > > 50 Ruby Street
> > > Marrickville NSW 2204
> > > AUSTRALIA
> > >
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~jpjones
> >
|