Jane,
What you say below is understandable but is entirely misleading
because it conflates Poet A's poetry, or whatever, with a whole load
of other stuff that in all probability has nothing to do with what
Poets B and C are doing.
To make such a direct link between some notion of an author's
intention (i.e. to disorientate the reader) and the result in you, the
reader (disorientation) is reductive to the point of absurdity. Yes,
the existence of some pieces of art or poetry can sometimes be so
reduced, but such cases are very few and far between. In the majority
of cases a poet wants their work to be 'liked' and even
'understood' (insofar as that concept applies) whatever type of poet
they write. They might have a pretty good idea that such a like' and
'understanding' are going to be limited, but such limitation is not
part of their 'intention'. If it is part of the intention (and I admit
that on the very rare occasion this might be the case) then it is
written in bad faith. If the aim is disorientation of some sort then
such disorientation is supposed to be pleasurable - the roller coaster
analogy etc.
Tim A.
On 20 Oct 2009, at 10:45, Jane Holland wrote:
> It seems to me that, echoing something already pointed out on this
> thread,
> the poem in question here - "Hot White Andy" - was written at least
> partially in order to elicit my reaction. Poetry of that kind is -
> if I have
> understood this correctly - written to disorientate, to bemuse, to
> challenge, to provoke, to force a new perspective.
>
> So when I question whether or not this is poetry, it has achieved its
> purpose and you ought to be pleased, not accusatory. If we all
> nodded wisely
> at such poetic capers and moved on without comment, what would be
> the point
> of writing like that?
|