Hi Tim and all
Tim Allen wrote:
Poetry, like anything else, should be judged/read/taken in/criticized/
enjoyed/praised for what it is, not because of the gender, colour,
class, profession, nationality, politics, character etc of the person
who wrote it.
And that's it.
Surely the latter informs/makes the former? Poetry cannot stand outside
society. Poetry does not have a separate life.
If poetry is liberating for the individual (in writing, reading, listening)
then it stands to reason that poetry is part of liberation for a group,
especially those groups, classes and nations which have been opressed?
I like women's anthologies for they often have a thematic element missing
from anthologies of worthies.
Best wishes, Rupert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Women only
> As I've said before, I'm very much on Geraldine's wavelength re this
> topic and I agree with her that women only anthologies have done the
> opposite of integrate. I know this is a very iffy issue but I would say
> that WO anthologies etc have done much to benefit certain individual
> women, but at the expense of women's poetry in general. Why? Wow, there's
> a question.
>
> Even more iffy to counter, Carrie said
> "Every day I have experiences that are informed by stereotyped
> perceptions of my identity as a woman..."
>
> I've two questions regarding this.
> 1. How can you tell a stereotyped perception from a non-stereotyped
> perception?
> 2. Can I, as a male, even consider, in the complex interactions of
> reality, the notion of being perceived stereotypically by women, let
> alone complain about such a possibility?
>
> Poetry, like anything else, should be judged/read/taken in/criticized/
> enjoyed/praised for what it is, not because of the gender, colour, class,
> profession, nationality, politics, character etc of the person who wrote
> it.
> And that's it.
>
> All the best
> Tim A.
|