 |
 |
you ignored my question Jeffrey. have you read the journal yet? http://abandonedbuildings.blogspot.com/ --- On Fri, 23/10/09, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry launch at Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009) To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, 23 October, 2009, 12:58 AM I don’t think the journal will tell us how poetry should be written, but the implication for me is that because Robert is somewhat fixated on poetics as an aesthetic act in itself (or so it seems) then his influence could create a sensibility for the journal that reflects this. I’m not saying this is inevitable, but it could be the case if not checked. This is why I am questioning the peer-review arrangements of the journal, as I understand them from what Elizabeth James has said. Robert has said, ‘Poetics only makes sense if your sense of art, artifice, artificer, is concentrated on the act of making, rather than self- expression’ (See his ‘The Necessity of Poetics’). Whilst I don’t advocate self-expression as something to be desired (at least if taken at face value) nor do I see the necessity for Robert’s insistence that poetics can only have significance if it revolves around the “act of making”. The consequences of this approach would be that a particular work’s reception becomes secondary to the means of its production; where, in effect, the apologia for the work’s production becomes more important than the work itself, or its affects on readers. In such a situation, the apologia becomes the artefact and the poem almost the explanation for it. Of course such a theory should have a voice in the journal, but not the presiding one. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:44:17 -0700, Sean Bonney <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Jeffrey, could you please give some evidence regarding your 'feeling' that the journal is going to tell us how poetry should be written? I've seen the first issue (and I'm very curious as to whether you have), and none of the articles seem to me to be making any claims as to how poetry 'should' be written. > >http://abandonedbuildings.blogspot.com/ > >--- On Thu, 22/10/09, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry launch at Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009) >To: [log in to unmask] >Date: Thursday, 22 October, 2009, 3:01 PM > >Sean, I'm not against academic journals if they are about the study of >poetry rather than concentrating on how it should be written etc. And I >get the feeling that this journal may lead to this, having read some of >Robert’s theories on practice. Only time will tell, however. > >I'm all for peer-review, but not when used for innovative writing theory, >the two seem almost an oxymoron. Would the various poetic >manifestos of the early part of the 20th century passed a peer-review >process? I doubt it. > >Also, if the editorial board for the journal are also the peer-reviewers >then is not a healthy state of affairs for any journal. If the board must >do the reviewing then it is a mistake for them to be named publicly. >Peer-review is all about anonymity. > > > > >On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:01:20 -0700, Sean Bonney ><[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >>Jeff / would you rather academics didn't talk about 'innovative' poetry? >its not as if the appearance of the journal means that poetry is >suddenly locked up in the university and no-one else can talk about it. >maybe, instead, it can work alongside non-academic activities - >Openned, The Other Room and suchlike. I think the kneejerk dismissal >of universities going on round here is rather reactionary, as if it was >still the 1950s and universities were still strictly for the middle and >upper classes, which is no longer the case, and hasn't been for a long >time (and, Jeff, on your part rather hypocritical, seeing as only a few >weeks ago you were trying to get us all to read your thesis, and telling >us how a chapter of it was about to be published in a peer reviewed >journal etc). >> >>its also rather alarming to see people lining up to slag off a magazine >they haven't even seen yet. maybe its going to be great. give it a >chance, yeh? >> >>Sean >> >>http://abandonedbuildings.blogspot.com/ >> >>--- On Wed, 21/10/09, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> >>Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry launch at >Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009) >>To: [log in to unmask] >>Date: Wednesday, 21 October, 2009, 7:22 PM >> >>Geraldine, I don’t feel threatened personally as I do not align >myself to >>any particular poetic school. But I see the “acadamisationâ €� of >poetry as >>largely unfavourable to its larger practice and dissemination without >the >>academy. I see poetry as a cottage industry, not as a corporation. We >>have seen how once an art form is passed over to the academy, its >>vitality is weakened. >> >>Besides, I think that academic study of “writing practiceâ €� as >opposed >>to merely studying the reception of poetry is too prescriptive an >>approach to poetic composition. Poets should be allowed to choose >how >>they approach composition, without concerning themselves about >>having to formulate a contrived rationale to explain how they do it. >>This is an approach I don’t think Robert or Scott would find >appealing. >> >> >> >> >>On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:33:23 +0100, Geraldine Monk >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>>Jeffrey, >>>You seem aggressively negative and confrontational about this >>journal. Do you feel it threatens you personally because that is how >>your constant anxieties are coming across. >>> >>>Like Alison says (and Mark echoes here) who wants a beige journal >or >>even worse taupe - yuk! >>> >>>G. >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Jeffrey Side >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:41 PM >>> Subject: Re: Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry launch >at >>Birkbeck (Weds 21st October 2009) >>> >>> >>> I think this journal, though, is setting out to be less impartial and >>more >>> catholic. If this is not the case, then fair enough, but it should >come >>> clean about it. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:33:23 -0400, Mark Weiss >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> >Does anybody really want an impartial journal? It's not a trial by >>> >jury--any journal worth its salt casts a wide net but develops a >>> personality. >>> > >>> >At 11:29 AM 10/21/2009, you wrote: >>> >>Quote: "It's usually not a list of peer-reviewers, but of >advisors >>who >>> >>funnel the work of others to the journal." >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>Mark, that is even more of a concern, as impartiality will be >>> threatened. >>> >>So, given this funnelling by these advisors who are also the >peer- >>> >>reviewers, how much credibility can we now give this venture? >>> >> >>> >>This could lead to yet another clique forming within the non- >>> mainstream >>> >>arena. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:23:24 -0400, Mark Weiss >>> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >It's usually not a list of peer-reviewers, but of advisors who >>funnel >>> >> >the work of others to the journal. >>> >> > >>> >> >At 11:14 AM 10/21/2009, you wrote: >>> >> >>When you say: >>> >> >> >>> >> >>"The people on the editorial board by the way are basically >>there >>> as >>> >> >>peer-reviewers" >>> >> >> >>> >> >>This means that anonymity will be taken out of the peer- >>review >>> >>process- >>> >> >>-this can't be a good thing surely? For peer review to work >>> properly >>> >>one >>> >> >>shouldn't know who is likely to be vetting their >contributions. >>It >>> could >>> >> >>lead to people being unwilling to submit work, which would >>> >>detrimental >>> >> >>to the aims of the journal. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:31:39 +0100, Elizabeth James >>> >> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >Quite. Consider the possibility that academic discourse >>might >>> >>actually >>> >> >>be as >>> >> >> >interesting and rewarding, intellectually / creatively, as >>poetry >>> >>(reading >>> >> >> >or writing); and then getting to be allowed to apply that >>mind, >>> in >>> >>work >>> >> >> >time, to the exciting, difficult and intelligent poetry you >>already >>> >>love in >>> >> >> >the evenings ... To me it looks like a coup, rather than a >>> defence. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >The proclaimed inclusion of 'poetics' will complicate that >>> argument, >>> >> >> >admittedly. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >The people on the editorial board by the way are >basically >>> there as >>> >> >> >peer-reviewers, and do'nt run the journal. Well that's >how it >>is >>> for >>> >>me >>> >> >> >anyway. I am proud to be among them, furry hoodies >and >>Latin >>> >>graces >>> >> >> >notwithstanding ... >>> >> >> >e >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >----- Original Message ----- >>> >> >> >From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >Gosh. That seems fairly sweeping. What if, rather than >>> stemming >>> >>from >>> >> >> >"insecurity", it's simply that it's interesting and >stimulating >>to >>> >> >> >think in a disciplined way about practice? (Sorry, >praxis...) I >>> >> >> >certainly find such things interesting to read. And I just >>don't >>> get >>> >> >> >this idea that journals of whatever stripe ought to be >wholly >>> >>without >>> >> >> >agendas, since I don't understand how that would be at >all >>> >>desirable >>> >> >> >or interesting - surely it would just mean beige all >round? I >>And >>> >> >> >don't we all, as Borges pointed out, make our own >canons? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >xA >>> >> > >>> >> >Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry >>> (University >>> >> >of California Press). >>> >> >Forthcoming in November 2009. >>> >> >http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland >>> > >>> >Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry >>(University >>> >of California Press). >>> >Forthcoming in November 2009. >>> >http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.24/2449 - Release >Date: >>10/20/09 18:42:00 >>> >> > >Send instant messages to your online friends >http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com