I feel some small responsibility for the formal education vs self-taught
debate so I'll contribute.
I have this notion that it may be possible to teach literature and criticism
(the construction of the tools; Anny, I like that analogy) but that an
academic understanding of writing and its methods, or even the complex
interaction of a reader with a poem, is more elusive. I can barely describe
the way in which I interact with a good poem, let alone understand it on
more than merely a formal level. Can this form of emotional intertwining
between an audience and a work of art be taught? Perhaps I am saying that
what I love is the personal experience of a poem, and not the breadth of
understanding or intellectual concept that underpins it.
I do disagree with the tabula rasa model. All writing owes a debt to the
good and the mediocre that went before it, and this must be learned or
unlearned as the case may be.
Ezra Pound advised writers to "pay no attention to the criticism of men who
have never themselves written a notable work". I've read William Faulkner
quoted as saying that real writers are far too arrogant to listen to anyone
when it comes to their writing. These two quotes fit so well together, don't
they?
But, of course, these thoughts of mine are unschooled. Perhaps the value of
schooling in these matters is in knowing what has been thought and spoken
before, so that one doesn't end up repeating what everyone else already
knows? I apologise if that's the case with the rant above!
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:35 PM, judy prince <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I had liked your Christmas cards poem, Martin. A little gem.
>
> Judy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Dolan" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 6:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
>
> > Hi Anny
> >
> > I'm not looking for an argument, either - and certainly not one about
> the
> > academy and poetry!
> >
> > I too have a sense of duty to my professors, who (mostly) were good at
> > their job. As a result, I left my studies with an adequate (if somewhat
> > dated) appreciation of the tools of literary criticism and how to use
> > them. I also had my eyes opened to a range of writers I would not have
> > encountered otherwise, including an obscure French-Canadian poet upon
> whom
> > I lavished too much time in my final year.
> >
> > What I didn't get (perhaps the fault was with myself) was any bridge
> > between the world of criticism and theory and the world of applied
> > literature - such as writing poetry. I doubt any of my professors saw
> that
> > as their role. I'm not sure that I did either.
> >
> > The consequence was a certain amount of literary self-consciousness and
> a
> > limited set of poetic tools. The poetic result - when not silence - was
> > unedifying. It took me a long time to get a better balance between the
> two
> > elements. Still working on it.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> without any wish of arguing but out of a sense of duty towards some of
> my
> >> professors (the old English teacher excluded, and I agree with you
> here),
> >> I
> >> have received much from my formal studies, as a matter of fact what I
> >> consider my backbone. And I am sorry I do not have time enough to go
> back
> >> to
> >> the Authors that at the time were so dear to me.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Anny
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Martin Dolan <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Nathan
> >>>
> >>> I look forward to talking with you.
> >>>
> >>> I think I'm mostly self-taught, too. Is there another way? English and
> >>> French literature at university hindered more than helped the writing,
> >>> on mature reflection, however much it helped the understanding.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Martin Dolan
> >
>
|