my glasses are forest-coloured
KS
On 28/10/2007, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Outside v inside readings - isnt that some form of false dichotomy?
> Neither exists as we're only readers and we impose our own
> rose-coloured glasses on everything we read. I thought we'd excluded
> intentional fallacies?
>
> Roger
>
> On 10/27/07, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Okay, Joe, as Andrew said, intriguing thinking, but I think youre
> > rejecting some of what was the point: to say that something is
> > sentimental is to impose an outside reading.
> >
> > On the other hand, I suspect it also has to do with the point Mark
> > brought up, that of craft (& as he implied, it doesnt really matter
> > whether or not the poet was sincere, only if the poem comes across as
> > being so). As a general non-reader of Wright, I can only say that I
> > read that particular poem & found it wanting, in terms of what I want
> > from a poem. Obviously far more readers disagree with my opinion of the
> > piece than those who do, & many of them probably do know Wright's work
> > so as to make the judgment based on context that you make.
> >
> > I might change my mind if I went & read a lot of his work; I might not.
> > But world enough and time....
> >
> > Doug
> > On 26-Oct-07, at 12:59 PM, joe green wrote:
> >
> > > For me the problem with using the word "sentimental" to disapprobate
> > > a poem is that the concept seems imposed from an outside that has
> > > nothing to do with what a real poem is or does. It's easy – it seems
> > > to me – and doesn't begin to get at what's there. Bergson already
> > > said all of this. The definitions – such as the one cited – seem to
> > > me to assume that a false sentimentality is what is being defined.
> > > Poetry is whatever manages to get said in spite of all the various
> > > systems and ideologies that exist to prevent that saying.
> > > If many, or this group or that group, want to impose a system that
> > > insists that poetry avoid the sentimental, than this is just what
> > > exists to be overcome, ignored, disregarded.
> > 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
> >
> > It's the first lesson, loss.
> > Who hasn't tried to learn it
> > at the hands of wind or thieves?
> >
> > Jan Zwicky
> >
>
>
> --
> My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> "In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons."
> Roman Proverb
>
|