On 10/12/06, 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.

I mean an extreme in describing my view on things.

I'll have a go at a reply here, though it's not a disgreement with
what you said, that's for sure. Yes, I'm tired but find what you wrote
compelling.

>
>
> 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."
> >

Strangely, now that I unsubscribed from that list I do not feel this
way. Well, not so strangely, considering how different it was from
this one. Too many emails I had from that list were lacking in basic
tact and manners, and substance too, you could check the archive or
the emails I got if you'd like them forwarded. I assume you don't, but
anyhow. I had a wonderful interaction with the people here so far.

> > 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).
> >

This is an interesting point. Let's talk about it please. Again, I'm
not arguing or disagreeing, but just elaborating or seeking
elaboration.

OK, the point I'm answering is why writing for oneself is not
ridiculous. It's a difficult question for me to answer because I do
not think it it is ridiculous. I can't even begin to imagine how to
answer. I need to rephrase the question. What's the point of writing
if no one else would read what you write? Is this an adequate
rephrasing? or, just in general, what's the point of writing?

Well, the answer is to the general one; I don't know of a general
answer. People write for whatever reasons they choose. For some I
guess it's entertainment, for some it's a form of socialising, for
others it's a trade, and so on.

In each case the requirements for satisfaction will be different.

Now what about those weirdos

I guess it depends on the purpose of "language", and thereby writing
itself, though not just writing, but art as a whole. I use it as a
container of experience. And therefore all I care is that it's clear
and accurate. To use the visual arts that you cited, you could perhaps
think of it as a snapshot, a photo of some sort. You see a something
that you'd like to document, you take its photo. Except that words
have a facility for describing less tangible thing, like
relationships, thoughts and feelings.

Much of life recurs. To the same person over time, or the same thing
could happen to different people.

[Kaspar, I'd written the above before I noticed Roger's email... so
I'll complete it tomorrow. Regards]


> > "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.

I don't know if you'd noticed, but I'm always careful to call what I
do "verse", not poetry. I would never call it poetry, and I would not
call myself a poet.

I'm only concerned with life itself, and language only concerns in as much as it

> >
> > 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/
>


--
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/