 |
 |
I await Anny's request for Joe to apologize. Simple justice. Meanwhile I am exchanging instant messages with Satan and must be off for a bit. On 10/30/07, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dumb and dumber. All of you. Stop it. This kind of behavior destroys > lists. Maybe all parties to this silliness should simply not submit > messages for a few days. Which dosen't mean that it's ok to insult > eachg other backchannel. > > > At 02:57 PM 10/30/2007, you wrote: > >Just in case you missed it. > > > >Joseph Duemer wrote: > > > >Thanks, Andrew. I wonder what other poets, loved in youth, flist > > > >members have had to reevaluate. > > > > Joe Green responded: None, I never liked bad poetry. > > > >Joe Green is quoted: "None, I never liked bad poetry." > > > >Joseph Duemer wrote: So, you just write it? > > > >So, as you can see, the only decent thing to do is to ask for an apology > >from Joe Duemer also. > >Or is he somehow justified? > > > >If so, please inform the editors at Fulcrum and tell them to cancel my 15 > >pages of execrable verse in the next issue. > > > >Or should I do it for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 10/30/07, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > if JG gets to run poetryetc, I'm outahere. > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > On 10/30/07, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Joe, would you like to run Poetryetc? I'll be glad to hand you the > keys > > > & > > > > get the hell out of town. Your relentless anti-academic, > > > anti-intellectual > > > > bullshit has finally just gotten me down. You win. Really, it's > yours. > > > I'll > > > > resent the list to make you owner -- just give me the word. I mean, > > > you'd be > > > > great because you know everything already & if anyone has any > questions > > > they > > > > can just ask you & that will settle the issue. > > > > > > > > jd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/30/07, joe green <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Do you consider the reader's need to not read a composition based > on > > > what > > > > > you think the reader needs? Seems so very odd... and seems like a > > > formula > > > > > for endless repetition of the same. > > > > > > > > > > Seems to have its origins in didactic poesy and seems quite 19th > > > century. > > > > > Almost schoolmarmish. Wordsworth began "The Prelude" as an > attempt to > > > > > justify his poetry -- why should anyone listen to him?.... and > then > > > kept > > > > > on > > > > > revising it until he brought it to ruins. Thinking of the reader > had > > > a > > > > > lot > > > > > to do with that. The first prelude wild and open to contradiction > and > > > not > > > > > fully comprehended even by the poet. The revisions all occasioned > by > > > a > > > > > didactic impulse with a sense of not having to demonstrate what > was > > > > > assumed > > > > > to have been shown. > > > > > > > > > > I like Eliot's suggestion that a poem is judged by all other poems > -- > > > > > those > > > > > poems are the readers in a sense. They are not troubled by > > > theoretical > > > > > grounds immersed in what is quite secondary and of a certain time. > > > > > > > > > > But I acknowledge that these ideas of how a poem is made are > accepted > > > by > > > > > the > > > > > general public and I suspect that they are created by the workshop > > > > > mentality > > > > > and determined by the enabling conviction that one can be taught > to > > > write > > > > > poetry. And that many are qualified to do so! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/30/07, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin, if you're on shaky theoretical ground then so am I. I > often > > > find > > > > > > myself anticipating what I think of as my readers' needs. I want > to > > > put > > > > > > things together in such a way that a reader will have some > reactions > > > and > > > > > > not > > > > > > have others. > > > > > > > > > > > > jd > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/30/07, Martin Dolan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the question of whether "a writer seeks to manipulate a > desired > > > > > > > audience", the question very much seems to be one of > intention. > > > > > > > Manipulation in this case definitely has implications of > trying to > > > > > > > obtain an advantage or an unfair outcome - unfavourable > intent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we used a less value-laden description (influence, > perhaps), it > > > > > > > strikes me that I - perhaps alone! - often set out to > influence > > > others > > > > > > > through some of my poems, at least by evoking an response. I > get > > > an > > > > > > > uneasy feeling that I'm on suspect theoretical ground here, > but > > > hey, I > > > > > > > don't claim I'm successful in my intent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas Barbour wrote: > > > > > > > > Oh [probably, Roger, in which case everyone is 'sincere'... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Mark was talking, if I remember rightly, about whether > or > > > not a > > > > > > > > writer seeks to manipulate a desired audience. I guess > that's a > > > kind > > > > > > > > of intention, whether or not it actually works? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would tend to agree that we're always readers, but then I > > > > > > > > immediately begin to wonder if that's right, too.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My more serious point in that post had to do with that > question > > > of > > > > > > > > craft, which as readers we can, I guess, only intuit, out of > a > > > > > > > > sensibility constructed by all our (other) reading.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > On 28-Oct-07, at 3:12 AM, Roger Day wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Outside v inside readings - isnt that some form of false > > > dichotomy? > > > > > > > >> Neither exists as we're only readers and we impose our own > > > > > > > >> rose-coloured glasses on everything we read. I thought we'd > > > > > excluded > > > > > > > >> intentional fallacies? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Roger > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Joseph Duemer > > > > > > Professor of Humanities > > > > > > Clarkson University > > > > > > [sharpsand.net] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Joseph Duemer > > > > Professor of Humanities > > > > Clarkson University > > > > [sharpsand.net] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/ > > > "In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons." > > > Roman Proverb > > > >