Hi David,
that's fair enough. I wasn't doing something to please. I'm sorry to hear
your friend had his head in his hands. It was a live writing. What does
quoting tell us? Would you be able to quote from writing which you had only
heard once and not had a printed copy of? Maybe in one or two instances a
'line' sticks in one's craw. But what I was TRYING to do was to critique
that whole point you raise:
> the focus is on the personality and
> appearance of the poet, rather than the meeting of minds that true poetry
> avails one of.
by not presenting my own writing as such. I am happy to post up some
contribution i received here on the list but that will go no sense
whatsoever as to what i did with them. So we can play that one as it goes
and see what other discussion might be generated here.
I wonder though about you mean by meaningless? What would it be to talk
about the meaning of works in a magazine, without referring to separate
contributors in order to reinforce this whole fetishization of authorial
voice?
Aren't you suggesting the need to want to separate out and attribute and yet
saying that is not the business of true poetry in one and the same post?
Maybe that's not quite what you. But the 45 minutes of what i read was full
of meanings and meaning making. As such it presented a meeting of minds for
further consort. So what is this meaninglessness?
and i don't mind that you think this just curious as to what is driving it?
love and love
cris
|