Tim -
I don't have all the answers...I guess that's why I create.
Not sure. Get up, eat, wash, think a little toward writing
a piece, maybe work a little, then the creation. Not knowing
the answers...
I don't think the answers are in literary theorizing beyond
the general. And they seem to always come after the
fact of creation. I think the answers are in "why am I here,
where am I going," rather than the literary form that I will
use or my defense of my use of it. Certainly, the theory of
literary form is inferior to the theory of life. So I act in
ignorance. I do think Eliot would understand this.
I do think all answers are personally sought and arrived at.
We can agree with another if we wish. Still, answers are
personally posited and therefore limited, finite, for the next
person, generation, to tackle, and thank God for that for
creation goes on and on tumbling, hopping and swimming.
I think it is very difficult to keep one's eye on the truth
because one has to support one's person, ego.
Do we seek coherence of thought or does coherence
exist? I really wonder since it is we, humans, after the
fact find coherence.
Tom
>Re your 'personal view' Tom:
>>"Theorizing, defending this or that theory, defending my own
>position, is like defending my preference for a giraffe over a
>hippopotamus. It's defending my own prejudices."<
>
>There are times when some of us are quite simply required to defend
>our preference for a giraffe, and such a request can come from many
>different directions. Sometimes it is not an external question, but
>an internal one, we personally need to understand. It might not
>happen, and that's fine, but because it can and often does happen I
>have to take issue with this...
>
>>"Some do it for teaching and some do it for careerism, I realize, but
>the time taken from creating is not worth it..."<
>
>My interest in theory, as such, has got nothing to do with teaching
>or career. I became interested in theory for two very important
>reasons:
>
>1. After years of being largely intuitive I suddenly wanted to
>understand a lot better what it was I was actually doing.
>2. I was fed up of reading the kind of subjective and value-laden
>vague bollocks that accounts for the majority of commentary and
>'criticism' made by british poets about poems both in the small
>press and the broadsheets.
>
>>"We shouldn't beat a dead horse and theory is a dead horse
>whereas the creative piece is the live horse."<
>
>This is a hard one, because it deals with a perception. I think it
>is a misunderstanding of what theory actually is. When you read a
>poem you like or dislike and you discuss it with your mates you will
>be involving theory. It is almost impossible to reflect upon a poem,
>even in the privacy of your own head, without involving some level
>of theory. I suppose that could be contested. Fire away.
>
>cheers
>Tim A.
|