 |
 |
John: It's 2:30 of the am and I'm probably less than steady on my head, but it seemeth me that I was having fun with the notion that the questionnaire was at least as authoritarian as any critic. Not that the questions are uninteresting, but I'd certainly decline to answer them in that format and at the length necessary for coherence. First time I've ever been called a symbolist, tho. I suppose you mean my assumption that the poem contains the answers to your questions. Truer for some than for others, of course, and for one or two of them indisputable--"is it Australian English you write in/with" should be pretty easy to sniff out, I'd think. But I'm back to an example of what bothered me, aside from the demand for all that labor: "6. Is poetry definable? Comment on liminality." It happens that I've been defining the action of poetry in terms of liminality for years, and I've also written about liminality in the context of anthropology--it's a central principle for me. But asking the question as you do fairly insists on the respondent responding in your terms--he or she has to engage liminality one way or another--it becomes pivotal even if denied. It's not the best way to conduct an interview unless your goal is to confirm opinions you already hold (I've also been interviewing people for a long time). And you lessen your chances for having the respondent's own governing metaphors revealed to you. OK, beddie-bye. Mark At 09:47 PM 12/20/2000 +0000, you wrote: >hi, mark > >the questions i offered are in a 'context'. of course it's a 'problematic' >process (as stated). but it is an attempt to undermine the authority of the >critical voice, to make it accountable. people answer as they will. the >questions are not immune from being challenged. i think the colonisation >question is answered within the deployment of the questions themselves, and >certainly with regard to the statement above - ie undermining the authority >of the critic, to make accountable 'observation'. the 'symbolist' purity >possibly suggested by your counter-questions is what i am attempting to >destabilise. and anyway, it's about participation. the same psychology >drives poetryetc - at least some of the time (spatial temporality!). > >best, >jk > >