I think I wrote that I found it depressing in many ways.  Here’s some of them.
     First of all there is the almost Limit experience of clicking and then seeing Ron's picture.  Brings on theo-ontic terror.  Secondly, why take anything Ron has to say seriously?.  The man has no sense of humor, is full of the dullest resentments, and has an execrable prose style.   Then there is the price to be paid for not having a price to pay.  80 pages.  Impossible... if "Jacket" were a print publication -- an effort may have been made to  move away from the usual blather.  For example, the inevitable discussion of poems inadvertently funny.  Bad poems...someone writes "I don't know  who this Mary Oliver persons is but..."
 
 Man, her poems are inadvertently funny.(TM)
 
 The discussion resembles what might happen if several Adorno clones were asked to discuss jazz.
 
 Rachel  is right about "light verse" and all the bullshit around "high seriousness" etc. etc. But I can't take taking Ron seriously -- even to bother disagreeing-- just because it all remains at such a low level.  No there there.
     And what is new or interesting in the rest of the discussion?  There’s a “cool” essay by Northrop Frye, the crucifixion actually a “comic” event, why are Jews so sad yet merry, could Ron have made it as a stand up comedian,  poems that  are merely funny won’t last Ron asserts!  The usual suspects.  Pictures awful.  Ron in Hawaiian shirt,  K. Silem with cigarette.  Poet with cat.  
     Ok, it’s a lifestyle thing.
  

Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote: It's going to take me some time to get through it all, Rachel (but then 
I did see that it took a long time to write it all). but I can sort of 
understand both Ken's first response AND his apology. I don't get 
Joe's, as if he didn't like it he could just stop reading. I certainly 
don't agree with everyone, as they don't agree with each other, but 
there's a lot of interest there for someone who just can't seem to 
write comic poetry that works (& continues to admire yours, which does; 
I particularly said yes to the comments on black comedy, the 
horror/comedy connect.

Doug
On 8-Jul-07, at 8:14 PM, Rachel Loden wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
>> what
>> depresses me
>> here is the expanse of what apparently is leisure time to admit
>> philosophies of comedy into a world that includes call
>> centers, WalMart,
>> and eminent domain.
>
> Which world should we have chosen then? The one with call centers, 
> WalMart,
> and eminent domain seems to be the only game in town.
>
> As for leisure time (forgive me while I stop laughing): the 
> conversation
> took place over the better part of a year, with people posting in 
> between
> their various duties.
>
> It'll be lovely when (and I guess if ) people actually grapple with the
> ideas under discussion.
>
> Rachel
>
>
Douglas Barbour
11655 - 72 Avenue NW
Edmonton  Ab  T6G 0B9
(780) 436 3320
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/

Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664


You may allow me moments
not monuments, I being
content. It is little,
but it is little enough.

 John Newlove


       
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! 
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.