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/%7Edbarbour/>
> <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-abovegrou
> >>>>>> 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-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
>