The reader also begins and ends in a state of becoming.
I'm not a language poet.
You really ought to do some reading.
At 05:15 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:38 PM
>Subject: Re: Dead ends
>
>
>>Kind of misses the point for an "experimental" poem, for want of
>>another word, which begins and ends in a state of becoming. To the
>>extent that the poem tells you its why it's a failure.
>>
>>Anyway, not something to worry about much.
>>
>>Mark
>
>If a poem must be read as beginning and ending "in a state of
>becoming," and if it fails insofar as it suggests a coherent them or
>insufficient open-endedness; is it *really "open-ended"? Doesn't it
>obey as strict a convention as any sonnet? I think the term
>"experimental" is MEANINGLESS in poetry. A poem is either good or
>bad, its style is either adequate to its content, or not. Stylistic
>fetishism, and dullness excused by sophisticated "theory," are as
>deadly to poetic thought as timid and unimaginative
>subject-matter. Language poets and "the school of quietude" are
>brothers in decadence.
|