Hi Doug,
Yes, it is difficult and especially in terms of an academic discussion
which I want to avoid as I think this would dampen the discussions and
take away all the wonderful gifts which other contributors have offered.
I am really happy to read what women writers have to say, just for
starters, as well as all the other contributions. But having said that I
will risk a few comments.
I am not sure, but I suspect you may be confusing a non-formal way of
writing with anti-formalism and the anti-aesthetics and anti-art
discussions which I know are happening in Canada. (That is a question,
of course.) I have all sorts of difficulties and problems with
anti-formalism which implies an anti-aesthetics and an antiKant but to
sum up, it risks a totalitarianism more terrible then the one it seeks
to escape from. As for being a stranger to formalism, this can only be
possible if one already knows formalism. You can't be a stranger to
something unless you already know something. So to be a stranger to
formalism without already knowing formalism in the first place is a
logical contradiction and impossible. It follows from this that
non-formal writing is not an anything goes and do what you like sort of
thing but a very slow and difficult type of writing to do. It is also
important not to confuse the process or the praxis of writing, the
production of writing as a poesis with what comes after. Non-formal
writing only conceptualises as a form afterwards and can then be
critically discussed in formal terms, of course. So, yes, you are right,
you cannot avoid form altogether but then you do not begin with form
either or a concept of form which has reference points from which you
can write. It follows then that formalism and the formal way of writing
would be impossible to do without already having formal elements and
references already in place. Also, to talk about formalism and form
implies to talk about the entire history of Western thought from Plato
to now, so it is a complex and difficult discussion. (Formalism does
have a history, which Hegel teaches us but then I disagree with Hegel,
too. ) Finally, a lot of my first post was informed by Blanchot's later
fiction, if that helps any??? Non-formal processes are also discussed in
D&G _A Thousand Plateaus_, especially the discussion on smooth space, pp
475 to 477 on the technological model is one reference I give when asked
about non-formal production processes.
and Hiya Will
As to Will's comments. I actually very much agree with the way your
tutor instructed you. For all my talk about non-formal writing, I have
actually done what you tutor did when writers have asked me for comments
and would happily do so again. It is a type of formal instruction and
very important to learn in what ever way that may be. You can then be
free to disagree with what you already know.
Also, although I do know that you can be made to feel like an empty
vessel that cannot have anything interesting to say while an
undergraduate or a student and by implication don't have the right to
speak until you graduate (and I have actually heard some people claim
you don't have a right to speak until you have a PhD!) I really strongly
disagree with that sort of thing that is put onto people. Everyone has
not only the right to speak but also in various ways what they say can
be very interesting and at times can be quite important. It doesn't
matter if you have a PhD or are illiterate and cannot read. so far as I
am concerned.
Anyway, I have run out of time. I was hoping to type up and post one of
Dorothy Porter's poems which seemed to me to fit into the discussion
about Carol Anne Doody, but maybe tomorrow. And thanks for the
discussion, I have learnt so much from it, so don't stop......
best wishes
Chris Jones.
Douglas Barbour wrote:
>As to Chris's questions, it's a hard thing to respond to. I do think that
>even what appears to be the most 'open' poems are 'formal' in some way, &
>this includes his own work. When the term 'formalism' is restricted to
>'conventional forms' as some of the 'neo-formalists' seem to wish to
do, I
>just think it is dead wrong.
>
>But, Vhris, if you wants to avoid form altogether, I'm not sure you can
>write at all. I'm pretty sure that I would find form, of various kinds &
>qualities, in the anthology you helped to edit.
>
>Doug
>
>
>
|