Sorry Luke but your last two posts were gibberish. Can you explain to a non-academic and non-poet like me what they mean?
----------------Original Message----------------
Luke wrote:
Well maybe it's unhelpful, and all I mean is that institutions ought not be super hermetic.
> As I reader I could appreciate both, just as at times I did not; the worst of the smooth and glossy seemed to offer little but that smoothness and glossiness just as the worst of the other stuff seemed to offer little more than its wild jaggedness and aggression—both could be as boring as hell.
Analogously to what Peter said about academies (plural) non academics aren't a single entity, even in their relation to the academy.
Cheers,
Luke
On 21 December 2017 at 23:04, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks.
> let’s just say that if I am irritated to high heaven by the kind of thing I related in the opening paragraph, and know that poetry produced within an academic context gives no de facto pointer to its quality, just as no poem has a de facto quality because it has been published
I supposed the original article by Berry was going the other direction, that academic sanctioning isn't necessary, rather than sufficient/ The latter seems difficult to take seriously, at least deliberately so. I mean I'll never be part of any academy, but then for similar reasons I won't be entirely "knowing" either, so probably more useful to think about how opposition to an 'otherstream' impinges on the academy itself.
Luke
|