Not at all Kent,
   I was referring to the 10 or more postings in the last few days from David Lace, none of which have advanced the argument (or advanced any argument at all) but have just made personalised, puerile and sarcastic remarks in reply to some cut and pasted lines from my own posts. To reply would just be fuelling what I see as a campaign of petty harassment.
   But your request to de-frac (or defractactalise) and to summarise the discussion is a good one. I had been thinking along similar lines. Maybe because I've been heavily involved on one side of this argument I wouldn't be the best person to offer an 'impartial outline', but (at least before this got abusive) I understand the arguments against mine and can respect them. So I might give it a try.
Jamie

   

On 28 Oct 2016, at 00:32, Kent Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Jamie, I hope you don't mean that my query was in the spirit of "jeering and trolling." I was simply referring to the personal jabs, on both sides, that have popped up, lately. Objectively speaking.

In midst of perfectly impressive thoughtfulness on both sides, as well.

Kent

>>> Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> 10/27/16 2:41 PM >>>

Hi Kent, I was just thinking of providing one. Some of the discussion has been pointless but one or two things of value may have surfaced.
But I’ll wait for the jeers and trolling to abate.
Jamie
 
From: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Kent Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 8:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a bit much (a request)
 

Could I ask a favor. This discussion on poetry vis a vis song has gotten very involved and with, by now, so many side-branches that it's nigh fractal in nature.

Could someone involved in the debate offer an impartial outline of the terms of argument for both sides? What are the central positions here, if they can be reconstructed? This might allow other people to weigh in with more confidence, and feel they are doing so without stepping into the middle of a pissing match.

>>> David Lace <[log in to unmask]> 10/27/16 2:13 PM >>>
Yes, you did mention those other too.




-----------------Original Message------------------

Jamie McKendrick wrote:

Sorry (damned mini-keyboard on the iPhone) I hit the send button instead of the delete! But since It's been sent I might as well finish the sentence:
And what 'literary theory'? I think I'm the only person to have made explicit reference to any literary theorists. To Giorgio Agamben and to Wellek and Warren. Prior to the recent mention of Reception Theory,

A propos, I'm wondering how many poets here are much concerned with or even interested in literary theory? I tend to glaze over after a few pages, and I don't say that with any particular pride.
Jamie