flame wars Roger? where?
KS
On 13/10/06, Roger Collett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Congratulations on upsetting the only list I know that has not had any flame wars before. Also
> the breach of list etiquette in posting items from this list on another is reprehensible IMNSHO.
> Did you ask Andrew's permission to post his work on another list? Which is not a discussion list
> btw but a workshopping list with all that implies about authorship. Basically I heartily
> disapprove.
>
> Roger Collett
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "biloxi andersen" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Please excuse me from "critique" duties
>
>
> > Hi Kapser. Great post. I love it. Exemplary tact and wonderful
> > intelligence. I read it but won't reply right now 'cos I'm tired. I
> > don't feel obliged to reply either as I feel a reverence for what you
> > said and on the face of it don't feel I need to have a problem with
> > it. I must say that post I made initially was provoked by bad
> > experience I had on "The Pennine Poetry Works"
> > <[log in to unmask]>, I unsubscribed from that list now. I
> > hesitate to badmouth people but I had nothing good and nothing but
> > trouble from that mailing list, though it's perhaps a tenth the size
> > of this one, and nothing but a wonderful experience here. I think that
> > bad experience might've driven me to an extreme.
> >
> >
> > On 10/12/06, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> "I don't think anyone is in a position to 'critique' my stuff, just
> >> like I'm not in a position to critique theirs."
> >>
> >> I find that a close-minded & destructive attitude. of course a writer
> >> should never attempt to tailor his work to an (imagined) audience's
> >> generalised desires, but I couldn't ever imagine learning or
> >> progressing as a writer without the input of others. 'input', meaning
> >> the interpretations, connotations, sound-connections, tones that
> >> someone reading my work finds him/herself tossing in their head. their
> >> reactions aren't some rulebook I then consult & follow; I don't follow
> >> advice I don't agree with. they're points of view. if a writer's point
> >> of view never changes, the writing (or its quality) also never
> >> changes. I'm of the opinion, as you are, that we learn most through
> >> practice; but what's the point in practicing it from from vantage
> >> point? sounds to me like practicing, for years, to paint a picture
> >> from just one single angle. the lighting & the colours also can't
> >> alternate that much, let alone develop, because it's a single space
> >> from a single place. I know that analogies from visual art are used
> >> way too often when speaking of literary theory, but it communicates
> >> what I mean in this instance.
> >> & when it comes to practice, isn't most gained through a _discourse_?
> >> when one learns, teaches & re-learns all at once, the benefits are
> >> notable; & that isn't possible without a position counter, or at least
> >> dissimilar, to the writer's own.
> >>
> >> of course, this all depends on whether the writer wishes to improve or
> >> not; & whether the writer writes "for themseves" or not. I think
> >> writing for oneself (ONLY**) is ridiculous, but I respect people who
> >> can explain to me why they _don't_ think it is. I will very probably
> >> not agree, but maybe the opinion I offer in return will make the
> >> person consider some of the things connected to their practice of the
> >> craft.
> >>
> >> ** I mean this in the sense that one writes a poem & never shows it to
> >> anyone; I do write 'for myself', increasingly so, but language is
> >> meaningless if it isn't used in a dialogue of SOME kind. one cannot
> >> have a dialogue with oneself, that's a monologue (& it's monochrome,
> >> in my opinion).
> >>
> >> "That's really the only 'critique' I could give to someone."
> >>
> >> here's my take. when one is able to write well, one is able to
> >> identify connections & methods. this is a given. in being able to
> >> identify these things in their own work -- before, during & after a
> >> poem is written by them -- they will also be able to identify them (or
> >> their lack) in the work of others. to point out the presence or lack
> >> of those qualities, & the effect that it has on a/the piece, is
> >> critique. one might deduce from this that to be able to write is to be
> >> able to critique.
> >>
> >> returning to the idea of being in the 'position' to critique: that
> >> belittles the person reading the poem, making them separate from some
> >> mythical 'realm' from whence the poetry is drawn, & it elevates the
> >> writer of the poem to the position of Creator, who is also in a
> >> separate realm & is also therefore untouchable. both extremes are
> >> false & fruitless. that rings untrue with poetry itself, in my
> >> opinion: everything separated.
> >> if that piece (beginning 'Disposable scripture / In the moment..') is
> >> the result of such thinking, I'm not surprised: it strikes me less as
> >> poetry & more as nihilistic philosophising. one of my first & most
> >> important lessons learned concerning the craft is that philosophy &
> >> poetry are not the same thing, & seldom mix well.
> >>
> >> this is all my POINT OF VIEW, to be ignored or acknowledged as your
> >> management of _your_ point of view allows. I'm also open to discussion
> >> on why & where you disagree with my disagreement. :)
> >>
> >> KS
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Her Lust is Wiser is a book of verse by Biloxi Andersen and Ziad
> > Noureddine. It is part of ongoing diaries.
> > http://inkatthedevil.blogspot.com/
> > --
> > This email has been verified as Virus free
> > Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
> >
>
|