Biloxi (is that your name?), happy you reacted so positively. I can
empathise with hostile/pressurised environments creating shifts in
mood & even opinion, having long been a part of such an environment
(elsewhere, hehe). I look forward to your reply. :)
K S
On 13/10/06, biloxi andersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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/
>
|