 |
 |
Certainly agreed, Mark, and powerfully so, with your "The impossibility of the task is what I think keeps us at it. It's like scratching an itch that won't go away." Conventions in poetry - the ways others' responses to experiences have been displayed/exploited - land on us. The impossible itch-scratchings you refer to are our best efforts - oh the joy and the hell! - to dowse our own startling elegance in the conventions. Judy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:16 AM Subject: Re: Kitsch poem: The Four Seasons > Judy: A generalization to the order that all language is a matter of > conventions may not have much to do with how most of us operate as poets. > It's not, I think, a matter of choosing between conventions so much as > being aware of the conventions that replace thought and feeling. The > delete button is a wonderful thing. > > While one never gets beyond the conventions of language (or for that > matter the organization of neurons), if one understands poetry as a > vehicle for exploration the task is to keep challenging them in one's own > practice. Each layer of convention may bring one closer to the object > beyond language, though language, no matter how precise it becomes, will > remain an approximation and never become the thing in itself. > > Remember Dorn's Literate Projector? Put in phenomena and it spits out a > poem. Would that it were so easy. > > The impossibility of the task is I think what keeps us at it. It's like > scratching an itch that won't go away. > > Mark > > At 08:27 PM 10/29/2007, you wrote: >>Sorry, Doug; I'd thought you were wrestling with >>not-yet-exposed-to-other-conventions students at the beginning of the >>term. I don't envy you for what you have to do! But I know, as one of >>your students, I'd have been hugely and positively changed by your efforts >>and your attention to any of my tryings. >> >>Best, >> >>Judy >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Barbour" >><[log in to unmask]> >>To: <[log in to unmask]> >>Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:14 PM >>Subject: Re: Kitsch poem: The Four Seasons >> >> >>>Well, yes, certainly, Judy. It's the actual dismissal of the wider >>>conventions (ie, an aversion to reading almost anything, let alone what >>>has become accepted as 'poetry' through a process which we could argue >>>about forever), while, unconsciously following the narrow few they know >>>(but dont know they know: Rumsfeld where art thou?) that leads to this >>>'sincere' but lousy verse. >>> >>>Except that, for their close ones, it probably does work. Mark's (I >>>think) point about specific audience(s), perhaps.... >>> >>>Doug >>>On 28-Oct-07, at 10:31 AM, Judy Prince wrote: >>> >>>>Good points, Doug, that I want to skew a bit. Those writers +do+ write >>>>from heart and experience - using phrases and forms they know (as you >>>>point out). Other writers who know more phrases and forms will choose >>>>amongst them. +All+ the phrases and forms are "conventions" (a neutral >>>>term). Choosing from a breadth of conventions seems optimum; >>>>nevertheless, some folks' choosings from their wide knowing create >>>>pancake-flat poems. Getting the chance to +know+ many conventions from >>>>which to adopt, combine and reject is the treasure. >>>> >>>>Best, >>>> >>>>Judy >>>Douglas Barbour >>>11655 - 72 Avenue NW >>>Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9 >>>(780) 436 3320 >>>http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/ >>> >>>Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy) >>>http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664 >>> >>>It's the first lesson, loss. >>>Who hasn't tried to learn it >>>at the hands of wind or thieves? >>> >>>Jan Zwicky