Apologies for the anecdotes. You havent seen me ramble yet.
If I called them parables I could found a religion, maybe
So I shan't
I said so much to some extent because I was surprised at having to say any
of it
I'm still giddy from consensus being bias
Anyway, all the best
L
On Sun, May 23, 2010 21:10, kasper salonen wrote:
> I'll leave everything but that last paragraph to you, because that's all
> you needed to say. not a big fan of the rambling anecdotal metaphors (but
> maybe we should ask 200 people?). I'm done with this, mainly because I
> can't say I'm even sure anymore what my original point was. no offence
> intended here, I'm just fed up.
>
>
> KS
>
>
> On 23 May 2010 15:40, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>> Kasper
>>
>>
>> I leave the second half of your message to you. I have no opinion
>> beyond saying I was just wondering that myself as I replied to Bob - and
>> no reflection of Bob or anyone else
>>
>> On the first, we didn't have a *lot of people
>>
>>
>> This is a small community and in it a few were saying a little bit of
>> the same. If you look at how they said it, you'll find variation i.e.
>> when it came down to detail there would be variation
>>
>> There is much to be said for what you are *now saying, which is not
>> what you were saying via _dumb ass bias_; but we also might have some
>> confidence in our own judgment
>>
>> One conclusion of what you are saying is that we mistrust any
>> consensual position. Perhaps then we give up until none of us agree and
>> then declare that one of us is right but can't tell which
>>
>> My point about the St Ives complaint was their stupid belief - I say
>> stupid - that because a lot (but still few) of them thought the same
>> thing it must be true
>>
>> This is the same block of houses that contained the woman who thought
>> the gallery only exhibited blobs of paint
>>
>> They were speaking out of ignorance and a determination to keep their
>> car park, a car park which dominated their lives because so many people
>> were trying to get into it. What most of them needed was a decent bus
>> service.
>>
>> I won't go on about that, obviously - but if you want dumb ass, there
>> it is
>>
>> My next door neighbour refuses to believe that water evaporates
>> apparently - her bare earth needing watering compared to my ground cover
>> not needing it is a mystery, she says; because she will not abandon her
>> desire for a particular style of garden... another wants to deny
>> everything that is known about sewage and water flow because he wants to
>> seal his garden under bricks with no drain (I don't know why) and
>> refuses to accept that is ecologically damaging
>>
>> It's the criteria which matter. Not the opinions. In this case I would
>> be very sure that the slightly shared criteria of those here on this
>> subject were sound.
>>
>> L
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 13:21, kasper salonen wrote:
>>
>>>>> Maybe it won’t give us enough perspective. Maybe we should ask a
>>>>> lot of
>>> people.<<
>>>
>>> a lot of people with the same opinion? doesn't sound sensible to me.
>>> I'm
>>> talking about a devil's advocate type approach. *why* I'm talking at
>>> all is a goddamn mystery.
>>>
>>> KS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 May 2010 11:32, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear Kasper
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the adjective "theoretical", as you are aware, refers to more
>>>>> than
>>>> reference to some single "theory".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do know that; and what I wrote was written in that knowledge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I meant that since neither you or I think Harvey's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> poem to be "good/great", we are lacking in perspective
>>>>
>>>> This is a very interesting perspective *you have
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pandora will be unleashing her chaos: you don’t think that my poems
>>>> are good / great so it’s obvious you lack perspective!
>>>>
>>>> Let me get this straight, Kasper. If we don’t think something is
>>>> good / great, then we go and ask someone who does; and that will
>>>> give us greater perspective?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it won’t give us enough perspective. Maybe we should ask a
>>>> lot of people.
>>>>
>>>> The Tate St Ives wanted to expand on to a car park. Some people
>>>> complained. They complained with the slogan “200 people can’t be
>>>> wrong”, Maybe we should consult them
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and would
>>>> (hopefully!) benefit from a p.o.v. from someone not as
>>>> dumbassbiased as we are.
>>>>
>>>> oh, an update
>>>>
>>>> we’re not just lacking perspective, we are biased,
>>>>
>>>> no, we’re dumbassbiased
>>>>
>>>> I tell you what. Maybe he worked REALLY HARD on his poem. That must
>>>> make it great
>>>>
>>>> and good / great could start a whole series of - let's call them --
>>>> balanced terms: mediocre / great, bad / great and atrocious /
>>>> great
>>>>
>>>> I don’t like using “great”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “good” is dodgy without stating criteria – which does not mean I
>>>> won’t judge in case someone has different opinions
>>>>
>>>> mostly the only judgement I make is whether or not to go to the gig
>>>> or stay when I get there
>>>>
>>>> by judgement I mean a bit more than good / great or not – though
>>>> when pushed I said it was shite because in the big scheme of things
>>>> I think
>>>> it is
>>>>
>>>> {I meant to say I’m not sure that my long answer on personal
>>>> environment was good. I regret sending it now]
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>>
>>>> L
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 02:32, kasper salonen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t feel such shrouding & I don’t feel an equation
>>>>>>> between theory and
>>>>> shrouding. Some theory…<<
>>>>>
>>>>> the adjective "theoretical", as you are aware, refers to more
>>>>> than reference to some single "theory". I meant that since neither
>>>>> you or I
>>>>> think Harvey's poem to be "good/great", we are lacking in
>>>>> perspective and would (hopefully!) benefit from a p.o.v. from
>>>>> someone not as
>>>> dumbassbiased
>>>>> as we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> KS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 May 2010 13:04, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Kasper
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m picking up on your email of late Thursday before I start my
>>>>>> desk chores
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> &/or real-life setbacks, because in one sense one might say
>>>>>>> that poetry/poetics *is* a machine, with multiple purposes
>>>>>>> (that people
>>>>>>> debate about).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can talk about poetry as a machine. It might illuminate
>>>>>> things. If
>>>>>> it turned people away from notions of “inspiration” and what I
>>>>>> regard as some of the nonsense around “self-expression”, then
>>>>>> that might be good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can perhaps see how bad poetry, like a broken machine, can
>>>>>>> cause grief
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn’t actually thinking that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many years ago I was involved in an open print shop project for
>>>>>> poets and one of the objections from others not involved was
>>>>>> that no one was ensuring that the poetry printed (for small
>>>>>> press publication – you designed your book, printed it, took it
>>>>>> away and tried to sell it) was being checked for quality:
>>>>>> someone, they said, should make sure that we only published
>>>>>> “good poetry”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We ignored the objection, but not before saying “surely the
>>>>>> market will decide” – all were of that persuasion. As so often,
>>>>>> we found that those who wanted themselves deregulated were quite
>>>>>> happy for hoi polloi to be regulated. They derided our
>>>>>> suggestion. Did we not realise how serious it was that bad
>>>>>> poetry might be printed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Er… no… we didn’t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remain confused by the apparent fear that someone might see
>>>>>> “bad
>>>>>> poetry” and be damaged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [On the other hand, as Alison has remarked, but in my words
>>>>>> because I
>>>>>> can’t remember hers, there’s a different situation when you
>>>>>> promote something officially… And having said *that, I’ll say
>>>>>> again that it ain’t that simple, that Harvey is good at what he
>>>>>> does; it’s just that what he does is so limited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my anecdote, I was more concerned with the complacent belief
>>>>>> that all will be well. I hadn’t been thinking of the effects
>>>>>> upon libraries of mediocrity and complacency (my words again);
>>>>>> but that’s been mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another response. Not long ago I participated in a
>>>>>> predominantly poetry event. I’ll say no more than that because I
>>>>>> don’t want to identify the people, even to themselves: they’re
>>>>>> ok to say the least and I wouldn’t like to upset them
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They / we were talking rather seriously on various topics,
>>>>>> using poetry as a medium and tool: their idea. I was rather
>>>>>> quiet, wondering to some extent what I was doing there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I took away, mentally, from it, was a shock at the degree
>>>>>> to which they were reading the poems carelessly. I don’t mean in
>>>>>> performance terms; but in comprehension. They took meaning to
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At one point one made a major attack upon a poem because he
>>>>>> disagreed with its supposed thesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, he and the poem were in agreement, in so far as one
>>>>>> can abstract a prose meaning in that way. (They all clearly
>>>>>> thought one can) He had misunderstood in a major way. Yet I am
>>>>>> speaking of poems which are *very
>>>>>> clear. No disjunction, for instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in my post, my anecdotal tendency, which has bored
>>>>>> generations, let me down. Presumably because I didn’t write it
>>>>>> well enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My intended point was that we settle for second best
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it would be interesting to hear from someone who actually
>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>> Harvey's poem is good/great, because I suspect that for us
>>>>>>> that aspect of the argument is quite theoretical and shrouded
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t feel such shrouding & I don’t feel an equation between
>>>>>> theory and shrouding. Some theory…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have always liked the title of one of Anne Waldman’s poems –
>>>>>> “How
>>>>>> the sestina (yawn) works” – though I probably take my own
>>>>>> interpretation to that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone thinks that Harvey’s poem is good, then I might want
>>>>>> to know what their criteria are. There might be great
>>>>>> differences between us. Calling the appointee “stand up
>>>>>> versifier” instead of “poet” could
>>>>>> solve that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . but I can't easily agree
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with another seeming implication of your metaphor, that
>>>>>>> writing good poetry is like building perfectly working
>>>>>>> machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It wasn’t my intention to say that. I was unclear about my
>>>>>> purpose, perhaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> because a poem that is
>>>>>>> "perfect" in one sense or area is utterly "imperfect"
>>>>>>> in another,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> I suppose. I don’t think I used the word “perfect”; and I would
>>>>>> certainly apologise if I had. It’s not one of my favourite
>>>>>> concepts –
>>>>>> and for all the reasons you indicate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might come back on the question of environment. That was
>>>>>> quite interesting and I saw some response. I might add to it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 22:49, kasper salonen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or maybe just, Quoi? Desmond, I'd say you just wrote nice
>>>>>>> prose that
>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> nice, nor qualified. can we get some expla/pli/cation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dear Lawrence:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your anecdote was interesting, and I think I saw one sense of
>>>>>>> it. but I'm not sure whether the example fits the ongoing
>>>>>>> discussion (drab & petty, maybe, to many) of poetics. it has
>>>>>>> to do with one of your other examples:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only this morning I nearly missed a train because the
>>>>>>>>> ticket machine was
>>>>>>> working badly. It is a fault I have complained about. They
>>>>>>> have done nothing about it on the grounds that it works most
>>>>>>> of the time.<<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can perhaps see how bad poetry, like a broken machine, can
>>>>>>> cause grief &/or real-life setbacks, because in one sense one
>>>>>>> might say that poetry/poetics *is* a machine, with multiple
>>>>>>> purposes (that people debate about). it would be interesting
>>>>>>> to hear from someone who actually thinks Harvey's poem is
>>>>>>> good/great, because I suspect that for us that aspect of the
>>>>>>> argument is quite theoretical and shrouded. but I can't easily
>>>>>>> agree with another seeming implication of your metaphor, that
>>>>>>> writing good poetry is like building perfectly working
>>>>>>> machines. because a poem that
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> "perfect" in one sense or area is utterly "imperfect"
>>>>>>> in another, I would think. for instance, a rousingly patriotic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ideological
>>>>>>> poem might inspire feelings of self-pride, and invoke a sense
>>>>>>> of self through nationalism, but it would almost have to be a
>>>>>>> poor-to-mediocre poem in other, more intuitively technical
>>>>>>> ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perhaps I'm just out of my leagure here, reinforcing some
>>>>>>> status of myself here as a youthful twerp (I'm 23). perhaps
>>>>>>> these are also issues without clear borders or definitions,
>>>>>>> which for many might incite alarm. in lieu of understanding
>>>>>>> these issues more intimately, I hope to concentrate on writing
>>>>>>> poetry as best I can, and enjoying the process. I figure that
>>>>>>> should at least come first, before more fully comprehending
>>>>>>> and intimating poetry-related issues of political and
>>>>>>> ideological scope. but I appreciate your patience with me, in
>>>>>>> any case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20 May 2010 20:39, Douglas Barbour
>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Qui? Moi?
>>>>>>>> sez us all...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20-May-10, at 11:35 AM, Desmond Swords wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Er, yeah.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks very much for being such a slapper of droll wit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Aurthor of your hilarious comment, comes across as
>>>>>>>>> somebody who thinks themself 'for the record' an
>>>>>>>>> incredibly important critic waffler effin like a silly
>>>>>>>>> apron man-hating petty minded drip.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cook my sock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Douglas Barbour
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/<http://www.ualberta.ca/%7
>>>>>>>> Edbarbour/>
>>>>>>>>
>> <http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edba
>>
>>>>>>>> rbour/> <http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edbarbour/><
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edbarbour/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Latest books:
>>>>>>>> Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
>>>>>>>> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>>>>>>>> Wednesdays'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-above
>>>>>>>> grou nd-p ress _10.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the poem, like the city, destroyed and built again
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and, here and there, remains of history
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chus Pato (trans. Erin Mouré)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "The desire to testify": interview with Chris Goode
>>>>>> http://intercapillaryspace.blogspot.com/2010/02/desire-to-testif
>>>>>> y.ht ml ["the fullest, or at least the broadest, account I've
>>>>>> yet given of what it is I think I do and what questions
>>>>>> underwrite it" Chris Goode]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ‘a song and a film’ by Lawrence Upton -- Veer Publications /
>>>>>> Writers
>>>>>> Forum
>>>>>> ISBN: 978-1-907088-05-6 A5 84 pages. 2009. £6.00
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "water lines and other poems" by Lawrence Upton - Pdf_16x16
>>>>>> 111
>>>>>> pages free download http://chalkeditions.co.cc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ‘snap shots and video’ by Lawrence Upton -- Writers Forum
>>>>>> ISBN: 978-1-84254-113-5 A5 52 pages. £6.00
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lawrence Upton
>>>>>> AHRC Creative Research Fellow
>>>>>> Dept of Music
>>>>>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "The desire to testify": interview with Chris Goode
>>>> http://intercapillaryspace.blogspot.com/2010/02/desire-to-testify.ht
>>>> ml ["the fullest, or at least the broadest, account I've yet given
>>>> of what it is I think I do and what questions underwrite it" Chris
>>>> Goode]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ‘a song and a film’ by Lawrence Upton -- Veer Publications /
>>>> Writers
>>>> Forum
>>>> ISBN: 978-1-907088-05-6 A5 84 pages. 2009. £6.00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "water lines and other poems" by Lawrence Upton - Pdf_16x16 111
>>>> pages free download http://chalkeditions.co.cc
>>>>
>>>> ‘snap shots and video’ by Lawrence Upton -- Writers Forum
>>>> ISBN: 978-1-84254-113-5 A5 52 pages. £6.00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lawrence Upton
>>>> AHRC Creative Research Fellow
>>>> Dept of Music
>>>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "The desire to testify": interview with Chris Goode
>> http://intercapillaryspace.blogspot.com/2010/02/desire-to-testify.html
>> ["the fullest, or at least the broadest, account I've yet given of what
>> it is I think I do and what questions underwrite it" Chris Goode]
>>
>> ‘a song and a film’ by Lawrence Upton -- Veer Publications / Writers
>> Forum
>> ISBN: 978-1-907088-05-6 A5 84 pages. 2009. £6.00
>>
>>
>> "water lines and other poems" by Lawrence Upton - Pdf_16x16 111 pages
>> free download http://chalkeditions.co.cc
>>
>> ‘snap shots and video’ by Lawrence Upton -- Writers Forum
>> ISBN: 978-1-84254-113-5 A5 52 pages. £6.00
>>
>>
>> Lawrence Upton
>> AHRC Creative Research Fellow
>> Dept of Music
>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>
>>
>
--
"The desire to testify": interview with Chris Goode
http://intercapillaryspace.blogspot.com/2010/02/desire-to-testify.html
["the fullest, or at least the broadest, account I've yet given of what it
is I think I do and what questions underwrite it" Chris Goode]
‘a song and a film’ by Lawrence Upton -- Veer Publications / Writers Forum
ISBN: 978-1-907088-05-6 A5 84 pages. 2009. £6.00
"water lines and other poems" by Lawrence Upton - Pdf_16x16 111 pages
free download http://chalkeditions.co.cc
‘snap shots and video’ by Lawrence Upton -- Writers Forum
ISBN: 978-1-84254-113-5 A5 52 pages. £6.00
Lawrence Upton
AHRC Creative Research Fellow
Dept of Music
Goldsmiths, University of London
|