Lawrence, I agree with you I am being vague and not defining my words as I
should. Which is largely down to writing a lot of things in a hurry and
being at the very beggining of thought. Hense why I am trying not to reply
in full until I have the time to do so.
What I was trying to say really was that I really appreciate my language
being challenged and how specific and varied everyone has responded to my
question. It is making me think a lot more about what I meant.
Will be back in the next couple days. Just trying to stick my laptop back
together after it exploded :-)
Thanks again,
Debs
On 26 October 2011 10:47, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Deborah,
>
> Seriously, and not at all meaning to be personally combative, but when you
> speak of _this_ in your last line, my only question is _what?_
>
> What has been written here is an array, I suppose, but not just of
> perceptions. Some of it has been closely and reasonably argue, albeit
> informally -- which I prefer. One after another, it has been argued, I
> think convincingly, that your terminology is deeply flawed.
>
> What we have been talking about intensely is, along one vector, that we do
> not know what you are speaking of.
>
> It seems to me, as I have said, that you are speaking of the whole of
> Poetry when it is at least intended for performance.
>
> Please clarify.
>
> L
>
>
> On Wed, October 26, 2011 02:05, Deborah Stevenson wrote:
> > Dave, and in fact everyone. It really excites me to see everyone
> > discussing so intensely and I am very sorry for my silence. I have been
> > working in and out of the country and on top of that my laptop exploded!
> > Hence my silence.
> > But when it is a sensible hour I will be reading everything properly and
> > getting back to you.
> >
> > But for the mean time, thank you and please carry on discussion because
> > you are teaching me so much about the array of perceptions out there. And
> > also, that I am not the only one with this on the brain.
> >
> > Will be back soon.
> > Deborah
> >
> >
> > On 22 October 2011 17:07, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> absolutely bang on, Dave. Particularly the last para
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:07 AM, David Bircumshaw <
> >> [log in to unmask]
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> I've been following with interest the discussion that followed from
> >>> Deborah's post and I am still balked at her initial question of how do
> >>>
> >> you
> >>> 'quantify quality' in 'spoken word'. I have visions of point-scoring,
> >>> as
> >> in
> >>> ski-jumping, high board diving. Or ice-skating. While, too, if I
> >>> assume that 'spoken word artists' and 'performance poets' are, for the
> >>> purposes of*poetry *, the same thing, what comes to mind is that in the
> >>> best the poetry is only part of the act, it is really 'acts' we are
> >>> talking about, so I don't see how the act can be evaluated or
> >>> 'quantified' for 'quality' ('7.5? No,
> >>>
> >> 6.0')
> >>
> >>> without accepting that poetry is a part but not all of the material.
> >>>
> >>> My own experience has been that the best spoken word artists have
> >>> really been comic acts that use poetry as a hinge. As such, the most
> >>> useful way
> >> to
> >>> see them is in comparison with other acts, with poetry or not. If,
> >> though,
> >>> one insists that they be 'judged' or, better word, 'rated' by their
> >> poetry,
> >>> then surely the claim is that they are 'poetry', not 'spoken word',
> >>> and must be treated as such, so that comparisons are invited with other
> >>> 'poems'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It isn't, of course, that there is anywhere an agreed standard on
> >>> this invidious, noise-screening necessity, though there tends to be a
> >>> (simmering)
> >>> consensus (kind of) about poets who have had the good manners to be
> >>> dead for a while, partly because the factions and alliances they fought
> >>> among have also gone (permanently) underground.
> >>>
> >>> Where I do get difficulty is when I find performance poetry or spoken
> >>>
> >> word
> >>> being simultaneously presented as a) something that cannot be judged
> >>> by
> >> the
> >>> standards of 'page poetry' while being b) somehow superior to the
> >> aforesaid
> >>> and c) worthy of being given the cultural role of the latter now
> >> considered
> >>> predeceased and living dead.
> >>>
> >>> best
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 21 October 2011 00:02, POETRYETC automatic digest system <
> >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> There are 15 messages totaling 1202 lines in this issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Topics of the day:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Landscape: Towards Mitcham Junction from the south (5)
> >>>> 2. Spoken Word (7)
> >>>> 3. Periglis from the sea wall round The Meadow, low tide (3)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> David Joseph Bircumshaw
> >>> "The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
> >>> universe
> >> is
> >>> that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin & Hobbes
> >>> Website and A Chide's Alphabet
> >>> http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
> >>> The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
> >>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
> >>> blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> -----
> UNFRAMED GRAPHICS by Lawrence Upton
> 42 pages; A5 paperback; colour cover
> Writers Forum 978 1 84254 277 4
> wfuk.org.uk/blog
> ----
> Lawrence Upton
> Dept of Music
> Goldsmiths, University of London
>
|