Mark, if it helps any, I have WALKING THEORY by Steven Vincent (we
traded books) -- and the book does such important things, including
perhaps remarking on exchanges like ours: as Steven says
-- and this goes for my opinions or a Ron's and (certainly) Rupert's!
and Anny's -- "There is not a humble opinion in the world." (p. 50)
Anny: I agree with you. The ronnic figure known as "Ron" is so very
deeply engaged in his reading trench that the depth of his trench is
sometimes sufficiently rewarding to forgive him the extreme narrowness
of that trench.
Douglas Barbour, I adore you.
Not that that matters one bit!
Gabe
<<Ron was very nice to Steve Vincent, for which I'm grateful, but when
I thanked him, as Steve's publisher, he used the occasion to extract
a bunch of books from me. Apparently he feels entitled to get free
books from everyone. Presumably he's building a library to sell at
some point. A bit seedy. I'm not likely to feed that sense of
entitlement again--kissing the ring isn't in my nature.
Ron's rave review of Steve's book was singularly ineffective at
selling books, by the way.
Mark
At 11:22 PM 1/27/2008, you wrote:
>I'd rather agree with this last statement,
>even though
>and here we go
>the binary automatically stands out according to the different
personalities
>we are facing, and inevitably.
>A Ronnic figure, to quote Gabe, is just so voracious in his readings that
>you cannot do as if he did not exist, besides being punctual and clear,
>dedicated and more.
>As much as Marjorie Perloff can be. They do receive my respect.
>
>On Jan 28, 2008 1:36 AM, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Gabe: "Effects" is an interesting word! These are my last effects.
> > Aesthetic
> > effects. This deeply effects me (from a Freshman essay). Mark is,
as far
> > as
> > I know, out only certified psychotherapist, so I'll leave the final
> > diagnosis to him.
> >
> > Mark: I thought Gabe was trying to enlarge the field by opposing
poetry to
> > people. I saw it as an attempt to undermine the binary rather than to
> > reinforce it.
> >
> > jd
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2008 7:21 PM, Gabriel Gudding <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > In reverse order.
> > >
> > > Rupert: I like the verb "diatribed" but do beg your pardon. I
looked up
> > > "diatribe" and found that it's a bitter attack. There wasn't a
trace of
> > > bitterness in my mind when I wrote that. I feel only great fondness
> > > toward Ron -- and would say the same thing to his face with a
smile on
> > > mine. What his blog does is less a function of Ron than a function of
> > > the field. You're probably pretty correct in saying that my blog has
> > > Ronnic features.
> > >
> > > Joe: I have a thing about cheeks.
> > >
> > > Mark: I don't oppose Ron qua Ron. I oppose that approach to the
field.
> > > It's not that I disagree with Ron in particular; it's that I don't
> > > believe in literature *in general*. There is nothing inherently
Ronnic
> > > that I find bothersome. I see that very approach to literature (where
> > > literature is an object of fetish about which one constructs,
furthers
> > > or bolsters belief) as fundamentally problematic.
> > >
> > > I see what Ron does as no different from what many others do. His
> > > particular project isn't that much different from what William
Wimsatt
> > > did, or Monroe Beardsley, or Cleanth Brooks, or John Crowe
Ransom. He's
> > > just using different terminology. Its effect is the same. So,
there is
> > > no anti-Ron there. Just anti-fetish.
> > >
> > > Anny: I seriously doubt any fetishizing of you would have side
effects!
> > > But let Joe be the judge of that.
> > >
> > > Gabe
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Duemer
> > Professor of Humanities
> > Clarkson University
> > [sharpsand.net]
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Anny Ballardini
>http://annyballardini.blogspot.com/
>http://www.fieralingue.it/modules.php?name=poetshome
>http://www.moriapoetry.com/ebooks.html
>I Tell You: One must still have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing
>star!
Gabriel Gudding wrote:
> ps and Kasper: glad what i meant became clearer. sorry to have been so
> vague!
>
> Gabriel Gudding wrote:
>> In reverse order.
>>
>> Rupert: I like the verb "diatribed" but do beg your pardon. I looked
>> up "diatribe" and found that it's a bitter attack. There wasn't a
>> trace of bitterness in my mind when I wrote that. I feel only great
>> fondness toward Ron -- and would say the same thing to his face with a
>> smile on mine. What his blog does is less a function of Ron than a
>> function of the field. You're probably pretty correct in saying that
>> my blog has Ronnic features.
>>
>> Joe: I have a thing about cheeks.
>>
>> Mark: I don't oppose Ron qua Ron. I oppose that approach to the field.
>> It's not that I disagree with Ron in particular; it's that I don't
>> believe in literature *in general*. There is nothing inherently
>> Ronnic that I find bothersome. I see that very approach to literature
>> (where literature is an object of fetish about which one constructs,
>> furthers or bolsters belief) as fundamentally problematic.
>>
>> I see what Ron does as no different from what many others do. His
>> particular project isn't that much different from what William Wimsatt
>> did, or Monroe Beardsley, or Cleanth Brooks, or John Crowe Ransom.
>> He's just using different terminology. Its effect is the same. So,
>> there is no anti-Ron there. Just anti-fetish.
>>
>> Anny: I seriously doubt any fetishizing of you would have side
>> effects! But let Joe be the judge of that.
>>
>> Gabe
>>
>
|