Rickki Janin wrote:
| It seems to me that the concept of empire making or maintaining thro
| poetry writing has to be more clearly defined. The root criteria must be
| an analysis that assesses whether a poem is merely by a British or
| American writer ( or other nationalism ) and whether the work itself
| speaks for the Nation as a culture or expresses only a supercilious /
| colloquial reality of the individual , perhaps understood and shared by a
| minority of readers.
Definition is important. I am not selling dictionaries, but I do recommend
them. A criterion is a criterion. An analysis may refer to or produce a
criterion but it isnt a criterion itself. I am therefore unsure what is
being said here.
Nationality - I assume _nationality_ is meant by _nationalism_ - is a very
doubtful concept.
_Nation as a culture_ worries the hell out of me. What exactly are we
talking about?
The conflation of _supercilious_ and _colloquial_ applied to reality
mystifies me. _Supercilious_ is used more than once... oddly
Thus I do not understand _This understanding_ which _also points the way of
Art, as a development through Transcendentalism and Universalism._
A development of what? Transcendance of what?
|However it does reject all those Lang-po writers who hide
| behind anarchic deconstructionism as having anything particular to say at
| all. They should be encouraged to develop their will to write in such a
| manner as they are able to communicate something real to share with
| others, rather than rant for the sake of ranting, especially when that
| tends towards the degradation of human culture in general.
This is _rant_ itself. If we had a few *examples, we might lose that sense
of a uniformed minister of culture condemning the canker at the heart of
society threatening our precious bodily fluids
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|