Andrew, Thanks.
I didn't attend the conference but even before your enthusiastic missive: I
want to know more of Talk Poetry. And if poetry, criticism and humour can
meld, I want to be on that Bridge.
Rupert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Browne" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Poetry & Public Language
> For someone such as myself who has little or no knowledge of Talk poetry
> Mairead's talk/paper was an enlightening introduction of how poetry,
> criticism and humour can meld. The weekend has sent me off on a variety of
> reading avenues including some of Tony Lopez's essays and other critical
> writings in the area and Mairead has given me an excellent practical view
> of what I am reading. The gender thing escaped me too although Lyn
> Hejinian did mention the need for more female voices in the new poetry.
> But with papers dealing with her work as well as Dickinson and Armantrout
> the content was there as was Lyn by her presence. As far as the percentage
> of male plenary speakers compared to female doesn't that speak of the
> society we live; the conference organisers drew from the available
> resources and we are a long way from gender equality at all levels of our
> society. Someday maybe we will look across our institutions and see an
> even distribution of genders and races but for now all we can do is try to
> change it from the bottom up. I suppose the question is can we ever
> achieve a completely equal society when we organise our selves in
> societies that rely on binary opposition and can we achieve the equality
> we desire when the systems of power keep reproducing these binaries? Maybe
> I have gotten too far off on a tangent here?
>
>
> Andrew Browne
>
> > I agree with Piers - to try to make some sort of vague gender judgement
>> based
>> on Mark's summaries is a step too far. I thoroughly enjoyed Andrea's
>> paper
>> on
>> early Raworth, and not just because I love early Raworth. I also enjoyed
>> Mairead's 'talk' but, like Piers says, it seemed to have nothing to do
>> with Talk
>> Poetry or David Antin - except as markers showing what Mairead's 'talk'
>> was
>> not. Which is fine I suppose, especially as it worked - it was v. funny -
>> a kind
>> of outsiding the in of self indulgence into a celebration.. It told us a
>> lot
>> about Mairead, but nothing about Talk Poetry and I found that quite
>> charming -
>> a talk as poetry or poetry as talk in which Talk Poetry itself is
>> negated.
>> The
>> problem is that if someone was there specifically to find out about Talk
>> Poetry - and not a lot of people this side of the water have much
>> conception of it
>> - then such a personage just might have wished they'd gone to a different
>> talk.
>>
>> Tim A. </HTML>
>>
|