 |
 |
I'm attempting to re-send this coz for some reason anything I send to PEtc today seems to get lost in cyberspace and time, busily no doubt chatting with Dr Who. Like wot happened t'other wek. Sorry for any doubling. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]> To: "Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and poetics" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:57 PM Subject: Re: Speak Up, Smartie [Was: A contrary opinion of the worth of Ms Graham's recent poems] > No cringing here at all, Candice, rather sadly resonant awareness of what is > being said, and its perpetual unsaying by so many voices from so many angles > in our culture. It is not a politician's simplicities, nor a marketing > manager's, nor a journalist's not definitely that of literary 'theorist', at > which substantive I start howling, at the notion of 'theory' that requires > neither hypotheses nor demonstration nor disproof but the blurring of a few > rebarbative assertions with a smear of verbiage, for a career move. Come on > Zizek, come on De Mann. Let's party! > > I have a lot of time for Doug Oliver, particularly what he seemed to be > finding in his later years, there is an article in 'fragmente' that shook me > when I saw it, after his death, as it seemed to be speaking what I feel so > well it was as if it were my own thoughts. I know some people think he went > off the track a bit towards the end, to my mind he was just starting to show > us the path. > > The question of simplicity is crucial, without that naivety, that guileless > unknowingness, we are just empty and smart-arses. Not saying tho' that we > shd all be wide-eyed and vulnerable, of course critical intelligence > matters, in our lifedays as well as poetica, but to harmonise the twain.... > > My favourite Patrick White novel is 'A Solid Mandala'. I often remark on > this to the Waldo in my soul, on the lines of feel too, as well as think. > > It's a wonderfully talkworthy subject, and one that could inspire volumes of > horror to all peace-loving genet son of genets, and thanks for extending it > out, Candice. > > Best > > Dave > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:10 PM > Subject: Speak Up, Smartie [Was: A contrary opinion of the worth of Ms > Graham's recent poems] > > > > Did anyone else cringe in response to that "simple-hearted" in the Oliver > > quotation below? I have a deep suspicion of oppositions between poetry and > > you-name-it that cast the poet in an implied parallel position of mystic, > > shaman, pope--some sort of Overspeaker for truth in general or true > feeling > > in particular, someone with a unique access to the human heart in > everything > > but the physiological sense. And if we must have recourse to "heart" in > this > > metaphoric emotional sense, why need it be "simple"? Is the simple more > > truthful? Why not the "large," say, as in Nietzsche's "when your heart > flows > > broad and full like a river, a blessing and a danger to those living near: > > there is the origin of your virtue"? > > > > Here the "you-name-it" is "literary philosophy," by which is meant theory, > > presumably, given "such theorists are dangerous guides." Compared to whom? > > Well, not a who at all, it seems, but a what: "the poem." And "dangerous > > guides" to what or where? "Areas where the poem" evinces something > spiritual > > to "the simple-hearted." Who are these people, I wonder, and how does the > > poem come to be in the business of not only cardiac correction but also > > spirit infusion? > > > > By the same analogical token, "literary philosophy" would seem to be cast > as > > the bad cholesterol of the feeling heart, "dangerous" because it blocks > the > > metabolism of "spirit" apparently. But isn't "literary philosophy" a > pretty > > apt descriptor of some kinds of poetry, and "literary philosopher" a > > definition that could arguably apply to both Nietzsche and, say, Charles > > Olson? > > > > > > > > Alison, quoting Doug Oliver: > > > > > What does it mean to talk of spirituality in poetry when no religious > > > belief lies behind the inquiry? An unfashionable question... Literary > > > philosophy cannot escape scepticism or programmatic ambiguity about > > > spiritual issues because we are trapped in a web of language, doomed, it > > > seems, to disbelieve in the unity of self and of artistic forms: along > > > with that, goes a loss of spirit. Such theorists are dangerous guides > in > > > areas where the poem, on the other hand, can make evident to the > > > simple-hearted: "This happened - spirit entered language and > > > simultaneously I perceived such and such sights, spoke such and such > > > words." > > >