Re Jon Corelis:
'No: truth exists in the soul.'
What is the point in defining one abstract in terms of a second
abstract?
'Language can only try to approximate truth through imitation'
Plato? - that there is always some core of absolute standards that we
are striving for... why? surely the claim on virtue or truth is
only ever part of a game of control and self-justification?
'Reality = scientific fact.'
But of course if you don't have access to some facts / all facts, how
can you claim to be real, in this case? The source of 'real', I
believe, is the same root as 'royal', and might warn us that the
word implies an elite perception of self and/or the world around
that only has use in the asssertion of status.
'Poets are anatomists of the soul.'
No. Poets are whatever they want to be. The whole convolved
argument about what poetry is and is not, and poet alike, is
intrinsically pointless, for definitions and exclusions
always end up part of some play for power, and if a poet
is no more than a cultural controller, even the most reasonable
assertions become political.
In the end, fact is usually the loser in any battle with our
own prejudices. It is always our own stance that becomes the centre,
the rational, the moderate, the norm: others are always at the
extremes, politically motivated, negative, ridiculous. One has
to be very highly and purely motivated indeed to trample down the
work of others successfully.
The lyrical, the countryside-bound, the natural world may
appear to be neutral and non-political, but of course the mere
act of maintenance of a tradition is a political statement in
itself. The most successful political propaganda, it may be,
is the stuff no one is aware of.
Wouldn't it be sad if the BritPo List ended up being used to
narrow the perception of poetry, and impose any manner of cultural
assumption as self-evident? There are myriads of ways forward,
and we might better spend our time evaluating why we are so
resistant to others' work, and possibly even muse the odd minute
why grant-aid so often reflects specific biases instead of
helping emerging contributions to literature in a genuinely open way.
Say I.
Bill.
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|