Sentimentality is difficult to define. But I know it when I see it. (I think!)
To me it means an expression of emotion that is very obvious. Where the
reader is being told what to feel.
It can also be emotional cliche, where, for example you say 'heart'
because you think everyone knows what that means, when your writing
might be more powerful if you found a more original word. IMO.
As to 'classism'.
We just had a very interesting poetry festival here where, to my mind, you
could clearly see the two 'camps' of what I will call, for want of better
words, highbrow vs lowbrow poetry.
Highbrow being a style of poetics and presentation that is concerned
with language & form ahead of content & communication.
Lowbrow, where the content & communication with an audience is more
important.
I have a foot in both camps, trying to create work where both factors
are in balance. Ken's work seems to have the same idea, as does most
of the art I really like, including many of the poems we see on this list.
Not all highbrow practitioners are stuffy or academic,
and not all lowbrow practitioners are ranting performance poets,
although those might be the images some of them unfortunately
have of each other.
Where people get lazy, there is sentimentality in the work of both camps.
There are interesting and boring poems coming out of both, too.
Janet
> Ken, you just don't like that I'm a professor. That's your problem, not
> mine. I quoted a workable standard definition of sentimentality. Why not
> respond to that.
>
> jd
>
> On 10/24/07, Kenneth Wolman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > andrew burke wrote:
> > > I define sentimentality as the over-abundant expression of sentiment.
> > And
> > > sentiment as a mental feeling or emotion, often with connotations of
> > > clingingness. Clear as mud, Ken?
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> >
> > I am blessedly past the point of nodding my head and pretending I know
> > what's going on. I don't. Am I alone in sensing a kind of classism
> > (bad pun) here?--those who work in the academic environment vs. (yes,
> > versus) those who don't? The assumptions of shared languages seem to
> > break along those lines. Mud is good for the complexion, they say, but
> > the dog don't hunt here.
|