On 22/1/05 3:22 AM, "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Oh, I said it from a sort of overview of this thread, making logical
> extensions
> from the various arguments presented here.
Hey, isn't that a definition of a straw man? You're certainly not taking
issue with anything I said or argued for, even though in your mails you're
quoting my posts. In general I am suggesting something rather more nuanced,
and considerably less either/or than you are suggesting. I was not arguing
that poetry ought not to exist in universities; as Mark recognised, I was
quoting a rather bitter joke of a friend of mine, familiar with both the
considerable problems and, as a gifted teacher, the advantages, of having
poetry in curricula. My friend was speaking about teaching literature
rather than creative writing courses, which of course exist here, but in
nothing like the dominant place that MFA do in the US. I even know what it's
like to enjoy the stimulation and privilege of being in a university
environment. But I don't believe it's undilutedly a good thing.
> Bernstein argues
> against various venues that now exist for poets and poetry on the grounds that
> they 'water it down', i.e. dilute its purity
Carl Bernstein was not arguing for uber purity; he said that poetry whose
main virtue is marked as "accessible" is "a watered down version that lacks
the cultural edge and the aesthetic sharpness of the best popular and mass
culture". Which is a considerably different thing to say; watered-down
refers to blandness as a lack of challenge or intensity, rather than
"purity" in terms of the sullying of the impure popular. He goes to some
pains not to diss popular and mass culture, and I think Bernstein's comment
is acute. I somehow don't think Bernstein would be big on the pure, but am
ready to stand corrected.
Hi Finnegan
> Well thank goodness the quote itself is better than the platitude of its
> paraphrase.
> If you went out onto the streets one April and started quizzing people with
> the question, 'Did you know it was National Poetry Month?', I'm sure
> you'd be met with mostly blank stares. It's more likely to heighten the
> consciousness of those who are already somewhat engaged with the literary
> arts.
Apologies for the platitudinous: I told you I was mostly banal. All the
same, it seems to me the corralling of poetry into special protected poetry
places is more "damselising" than wanting it to be exciting and vital and
more embedded in people's lives. But - if National Poetry Month doesn't
make the average woman in the street more aware of poetry, then why bother
with it? I'm with the Mark Weiss Mermaid Tavern model , poofy shirts and
all; so much more fun than the earnest "have a dose of poetry, it's good for
you" thing. (Also, I have never liked Mother's Day, although I put up with
it).
I write popular literature. I take it very seriously and work hard to write
it well, but I don't for a moment think it offers the same experiences as
reading poetry. Or writing it, for that matter. Poetry offers, as
Bernstein said, a crucial alternative - different from, not "better" than,
popular culture.
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|