can someone tell me how to unenroll?cOn Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:00 PM, BRITISH-IRISH-POETS automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]> wrote:There are 18 messages totaling 2413 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Poetry and Stupidity
2. The "problem" of prosody (13)
3. Snowden, Eno, Levy, Alcalay
4. Shearsman Reading
5. Appeal to moderators
6. The use(s) of criticism
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 07:15:00 +0000
From: David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Poetry and Stupidity
Definitely. I particularly like the requirement for vacancy and the
necessity for fooling around and BEING WITHOUT A PLAN :
http://poems.com/special_features/prose/essay_raab_ stupidity.php
--
David Joseph Bircumshaw
https://spectares-web.000webhostapp.com/
The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
Tumblr: http://zantikus.tumblr.com/
twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:21:38 +0000
From: Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Sorry Robin but I really do not understand your second sentence below - particularly the pedestal thing, and as for 'unique adoration', well. this is so far from the truth it's ridiculous and I don't know what I've said here that makes you think it.
One of the biggest problems with the way lists like this function is the way we often have to repeat something we said a lot earlier in the exchanges, and when there is a lot of it and followed by hundreds of other posts it just gets lost.
Near the start of the discussion I mentioned the fact that I had very mixed and complicated feelings regarding Dylan, both the man and the output, and I think I even said somewhere that I never put anybody on a pedestal, ever. The fact that culturally Dylan is on a pedestal has got nothing to do with me, but of course I will have opinions regarding that fact. So, what the hell are you talking about?
Regarding the 'ripping him out of his context'? Which context? Dylan it seems to me has always questioned and ripped himself out of 'contexts'. Are you saying that the tradition Dylan walked into is the only context that is important? And so much could be said about that so-called 'tradition' at the time anyway, the folk boom of the early 60's America, with its various colours and disparate roots, let alone the way it evolved in urban liberal coffee houses frequented mainly by young, white, radically political and culturally liberal middle class 'folk', that it is just meaningless to refer to Dylan as some sort of 'inheritor' of anything.
Where you are exactly coming from Robin, on this topic, needs clarification.
Cheers
Tim
On 29 Oct 2016, at 16:10, Robin Hamilton wrote:
> Deep down, we're probably seeing different Dylans. When I look at him, I see (among other things) the inheritor of a particular tradition, the young Dylan sitting beside the aged Blind Willie McTell, both with their guitars, both singing the blues. Sure, he extends the tradition, but he's still part of it, and I get the sense, perhaps unfairly, that you want to do to him what was done to Shakespeare, rip him out of his context and set him up on a pedestal as an object for Unique Adoration.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:21:19 +0000
From: Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Yes to everything in your long paragraph Jeff.
I also need to say that I got the title of the album wrong, it's Good As I Been to You, which along with World Gone Wrong was a brilliant performance of traditional songs with just Dylan on guitar and harmonica. (I hope that by saying brilliant I haven't put the man on the pedestal, Robin, - it's just the way we show our appreciation of something good.) Somebody else might use the word boring or god-awful - so it goes, it's not important.
But going back and explaining why my argument does not rely on the lyric/poem thing is more difficult - I'd have to go back and find the bits and reform them (which I might if I get the time). In a very general way it's my way of explaining why I agree with your sentence below - "I do regard what he does as being “literature, as that term accommodates (or perhaps should) all art forms that operate with words, and songs do."
Thanks to what Peter was saying about what Denise Riley says I am in full agreement about that same distinction between the possibilities of poem and song that you have come around to. The distinction might be endlessly compromised but nevertheless for a certain type of poetry on the page it holds true.
Cheers
Tim
On 29 Oct 2016, at 17:07, Jeffrey Side wrote:
> Tim, not all of your posts were addressed to me, so I’ll respond to those that don’t as well as to those that do. I’ll put my responses beneath quoted passages by you.
>
> “There has been a tendency in these conversation towards an unwillingness to separate off parts - if someone was to praise Dylan's guitar playing on The Good Is Gone album that would not be a belittling of his vocal performance or the strength and mystery of the songs (which were all traditional of course - again with spare and suggestive narratives and imagery which far outshine a good deal of finicky literary poetry that pretends to be doing similar). Of course with someone like Dylan it all becomes one, and is supposed to, and I have never denied that - for me it's just not the point.”
>
> Personally, I’m willing to separate parts of Dylan’s art. There are, indeed, distinct elements of it in play. Each can be appreciated separately in my view, but it is the gathering together of them in one performance that makes them effective. I’ve read his lyrics on the page, and though they do have striking turns of phrase, and utilise poetic ambiguity far more effectively than much of modern mainstream written poetry does, the naked text on the page seems sparse and dry. Maybe this isn’t the case with all his lyrics—how could it be; he’s written so many of them, that many will compare favourably with written poetry when read as texts. His lyrics are, indeed, poetic and do contain poetic elements like metaphor, allusion, symbolism etc. It is only that the placement of the words and phrases on the page, don’t read as smoothly, as, say, Eliot’s ‘Prufrock’. To say this, isn’t denying that they are not poetic or literary, etc. just that they don’t read as pleasingly as they sound when sung. A poor comparison (I can’t think of a better one) is that between the performance of a play and the text of the play being read as a story. Or the watching of a film with the sound turned down and the colour (if it is in colour) removed. Both art forms need their other elements to fully be effective, as does Dylan’s art.
>
> “If you look at my reasons for backing up the Dylan thing you should see that my argument is not dependant on this lyric/poem thing.”
>
> Can you explain this? I must have missed that part of the discussion.
>
> “I think you are right on that Jeff. If Dylan was on the Nobel committee Dylan would not have been given the prize. But that's just his opinion, I or anyone else can have another.”
>
> I’m not against him having a Nobel—though I know you aren’t saying I am. I’m just stating that for the record. He does, indeed, deserve to have one. I do regard what he does as being “literature, as that term accommodates (or perhaps should) all art forms that operate with words, and songs do.
>
> As I said to Jamie, a few years ago I would have been in full agreement with you. But I don’t see Dylan as needing to be defended anymore regarding his needing to be recognised as a “written poet”, as I don’t see written poetry being superior to song.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:20:30 -0400
From: Sean Carey <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
I can never read song lyrics and much prefer listening to them. With poetry I still love reading it and prose. When I worked in a multi media some years ago I learned that writing poems and songs are chalk and cheese. Leonard Cohen's songs are great but his poetry leaves me cold. Yet his novels are top class.
In a religous context often great sermons + good vibes are ruined by very weak hymns. Even in more modern 20th century religous movements the music can be poor. This goes across the religous range as church visiting is a hobby of mine. Music in theatre is also of interest but getting older means one has one then two tin ears. What once was a pleasure fades with illness and age.
sc
Turn that frown upside down
On Sunday, 30 October 2016, Tim Allen <0000002899e7d020-dmarc-[log in to unmask] > wrote:
Yes to everything in your long paragraph Jeff.
I also need to say that I got the title of the album wrong, it's Good As I Been to You, which along with World Gone Wrong was a brilliant performance of traditional songs with just Dylan on guitar and harmonica. (I hope that by saying brilliant I haven't put the man on the pedestal, Robin, - it's just the way we show our appreciation of something good.) Somebody else might use the word boring or god-awful - so it goes, it's not important.
But going back and explaining why my argument does not rely on the lyric/poem thing is more difficult - I'd have to go back and find the bits and reform them (which I might if I get the time). In a very general way it's my way of explaining why I agree with your sentence below - "I do regard what he does as being “literature, as that term accommodates (or perhaps should) all art forms that operate with words, and songs do."
Thanks to what Peter was saying about what Denise Riley says I am in full agreement about that same distinction between the possibilities of poem and song that you have come around to. The distinction might be endlessly compromised but nevertheless for a certain type of poetry on the page it holds true.
Cheers
Tim
On 29 Oct 2016, at 17:07, Jeffrey Side wrote:
> Tim, not all of your posts were addressed to me, so I’ll respond to those that don’t as well as to those that do. I’ll put my responses beneath quoted passages by you.
>
> “There has been a tendency in these conversation towards an unwillingness to separate off parts - if someone was to praise Dylan's guitar playing on The Good Is Gone album that would not be a belittling of his vocal performance or the strength and mystery of the songs (which were all traditional of course - again with spare and suggestive narratives and imagery which far outshine a good deal of finicky literary poetry that pretends to be doing similar). Of course with someone like Dylan it all becomes one, and is supposed to, and I have never denied that - for me it's just not the point.”
>
> Personally, I’m willing to separate parts of Dylan’s art. There are, indeed, distinct elements of it in play. Each can be appreciated separately in my view, but it is the gathering together of them in one performance that makes them effective. I’ve read his lyrics on the page, and though they do have striking turns of phrase, and utilise poetic ambiguity far more effectively than much of modern mainstream written poetry does, the naked text on the page seems sparse and dry. Maybe this isn’t the case with all his lyrics—how could it be; he’s written so many of them, that many will compare favourably with written poetry when read as texts. His lyrics are, indeed, poetic and do contain poetic elements like metaphor, allusion, symbolism etc. It is only that the placement of the words and phrases on the page, don’t read as smoothly, as, say, Eliot’s ‘Prufrock’. To say this, isn’t denying that they are not poetic or literary, etc. just that they don’t read as pleasingly as they sound when sung. A poor comparison (I can’t think of a better one) is that between the performance of a play and the text of the play being read as a story. Or the watching of a film with the sound turned down and the colour (if it is in colour) removed. Both art forms need their other elements to fully be effective, as does Dylan’s art.
>
> “If you look at my reasons for backing up the Dylan thing you should see that my argument is not dependant on this lyric/poem thing.”
>
> Can you explain this? I must have missed that part of the discussion.
>
> “I think you are right on that Jeff. If Dylan was on the Nobel committee Dylan would not have been given the prize. But that's just his opinion, I or anyone else can have another.”
>
> I’m not against him having a Nobel—though I know you aren’t saying I am. I’m just stating that for the record. He does, indeed, deserve to have one. I do regard what he does as being “literature, as that term accommodates (or perhaps should) all art forms that operate with words, and songs do.
>
> As I said to Jamie, a few years ago I would have been in full agreement with you. But I don’t see Dylan as needing to be defended anymore regarding his needing to be recognised as a “written poet”, as I don’t see written poetry being superior to song.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:42:22 +0000
From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Tim, once I’d got over my mistaken view that written poetry was automatically superior to song (how I got that view is a mystery: probably it was due to reading some reviews by poetry traditionalists in various little magazines in the 1980s), I could begin see the two arts (written poetry and song) as not needing to be in competition with each other. Of course, there are inevitable similarities between them: the most obvious being that they are both dependent on words (leaving aside visual poetry, which relies less on words for its effectiveness—I’m aware, though, that this point might be contested).
Speaking for myself, I find song more “powerful” than written poetry, as it has the advantages of having melody, singing and musical accompaniment (usually) as factors. These aspects (if of some quality—we can recognise bad melodies, bad singing and bad musical accompaniment), for me at any rate, heighten the emotional significance of the words. Written poetry (mainly that of the last 60 or so years), by and large, seldom does this for me, and largely engages me only intellectually, similar to the way reading philosophy or literary criticism does. This is one of its major disadvantages, despite it having more intellectual/philosophical discursiveness (in some cases) than song has. I accept that this is probably an eccentric view, and is expressed here as purely an opinion.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:21 Tim Allen wrote:
Yes to everything in your long paragraph Jeff.
I also need to say that I got the title of the album wrong, it's Good As I Been to You, which along with World Gone Wrong was a brilliant performance of traditional songs with just Dylan on guitar and harmonica. (I hope that by saying brilliant I haven't put the man on the pedestal, Robin, - it's just the way we show our appreciation of something good.) Somebody else might use the word boring or god-awful - so it goes, it's not important.
But going back and explaining why my argument does not rely on the lyric/poem thing is more difficult - I'd have to go back and find the bits and reform them (which I might if I get the time). In a very general way it's my way of explaining why I agree with your sentence below - "I do regard what he does as being “literature, as that term accommodates (or perhaps should) all art forms that operate with words, and songs do."
Thanks to what Peter was saying about what Denise Riley says I am in full agreement about that same distinction between the possibilities of poem and song that you have come around to. The distinction might be endlessly compromised but nevertheless for a certain type of poetry on the page it holds true.
Cheers
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:01:56 +0000
From: Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
OK - I'm not going to troll back, too tedious. I'll attempt to restate the reason why I think the use of words within what we call a song and the performance of that song is just as much 'literature' as the use of words in a poem or novel.
To begin with this has absolutely nothing to do with the differences, either in quality or manner, between the poem/lyric/words on the page and the same in a song e.g. it has nothing to do with the quality of a Dylan lyric compared with a page poem. Secondly it is not at base to do with how good or bad we think Dylan is as a wordsmith because it is possible to agree with what I am going to say below while still thinking that Dylan doesn't deserve the prize because he is not good enough.
Literature appears to be that area of human activity concerned with the purposeful use of words above and beyond utilitarian communication, recording and information giving. It is part of the larger concept of art. It involves itself both with the seemingly true and the seemingly unreal and is closely associated both with story telling, personal expression/exploration of feelings and opinions and imaginative invention. (I'm sure any of us would be able to provide their own general definition such as this one).
In order to work, to be presented, literature needs form, but there is no predetermined form for literature in general. Different uses of literature seem to require different forms and these forms developed and changed over time. Literature's most common forms today, particularly in what we call the 'west', are poetry, fiction, song lyrics and scripts (feel free to add to this list). Poetry and fiction as they appear on the page are unaccompanied language (I say 'appear' because there is no such thing as unaccompanied language, it is just that in these instances there is no immediate accompaniment, such as music or pictures or voice). However, they developed INTO those forms. Literature did not develop OUT of those forms. They are a part of literature, but they are not the only part. The novel for example is a particular type/form of fiction/story telling which has been very successful, but at heart it is an artificial form of language use. Poetry is a far broader and far more problematic form of literature than the novel because of the huge variety of purposes and contexts in which it has been written. Form-wise, very broadly speaking, fiction developed out of oral story telling while poetry developed out of singing and chanting, but the details of these developments, though very interesting, have no bearing on the main issue. Any higher status and priority given the 'unaccompanied word' forms of literature does not disqualify the other forms from adhering to the general definition of literature I gave above. If so then this points to a much narrower and much more recent and westernised idea of literature, one which would in fact require a different definition. As an aside I don't think it would be a definition which would go down very well in the wider culture. It would be seen, quite rightly, as retrogressive and elitist.
As a writer of the stuff they call poetry, and as that poetry is written first and for-most on the page and for the page, of course I recognise its differences and possibilities compared with lyrics written to be sung. But this has got absolutely nothing to do with the above argument.
Despite the above statement re writing poetry, there is in fact no way of knowing or judging the actual strength of a particular art form as it operates/impinges (whatever word you want) on an individual sensability. While it is not important to my argument above I still think it has relevance when trying to understand the reasons behind the counter arguments - which is what draws me in this case towards a type of reception theory. I don't go along with the post-modern cultural levelling theories, but I can see where they come from and why they are so appealing. I have always found the patronising judgements on another's individual capacity for experience which are made by those artists, writers, critics and cultural philosophers with a hierarchical notion of art not just unpleasant but, more importantly, entirely unprovable.
Apologies for the length but it was unavoidable.
Cheers
Tim
On 29 Oct 2016, at 17:07, Jeffrey Side wrote:
> “If you look at my reasons for backing up the Dylan thing you should see that my argument is not dependant on this lyric/poem thing.”
>
> Can you explain this? I must have missed that part of the discussion.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:28:42 -0500
From: Kent Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Snowden, Eno, Levy, Alcalay
New at Dispatches :
"Snowden," an essay on the labor and ethics of poetry, by Andrew Levy.
and
Brian Eno, Art, and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement against Israel
by Ammiel Alcalay, with a new letter from Brian Eno
http://dispatchespoetry.com/home/recent/news
Dispatches : Everyone's darling in the Poetry Field since 2016.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 17:17:50 +0000
From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Tim, would it be fair to summarise your position as being encapsulated in your following statement: ‘In order to work, to be presented, literature needs form, but there is no predetermined form for literature in general’. And do you mean by this, that all forms that have developed in order to make literature manifest are only arbitrary, and, as such, are of no significance when it comes to evaluating the validity or importance of any one of these forms over the other? And, therefore, the form that gives shape to what we call “poetry” is the same as that which gives shape to what we call “song”; and, as such, it would be a mistake for anyone to make qualitative and aesthetical distinctions between them, given the arbitrary nature of their formation. Is this in essence your position? Or have I assumed too much? If it is your position, it seems a reasonable one.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:01 Tim Allen wrote:
OK - I'm not going to troll back, too tedious. I'll attempt to restate the reason why I think the use of words within what we call a song and the performance of that song is just as much 'literature' as the use of words in a poem or novel.
To begin with this has absolutely nothing to do with the differences, either in quality or manner, between the poem/lyric/words on the page and the same in a song e.g. it has nothing to do with the quality of a Dylan lyric compared with a page poem. Secondly it is not at base to do with how good or bad we think Dylan is as a wordsmith because it is possible to agree with what I am going to say below while still thinking that Dylan doesn't deserve the prize because he is not good enough.
Literature appears to be that area of human activity concerned with the purposeful use of words above and beyond utilitarian communication, recording and information giving. It is part of the larger concept of art. It involves itself both with the seemingly true and the seemingly unreal and is closely associated both with story telling, personal expression/exploration of feelings and opinions and imaginative invention. (I'm sure any of us would be able to provide their own general definition such as this one).
In order to work, to be presented, literature needs form, but there is no predetermined form for literature in general. Different uses of literature seem to require different forms and these forms developed and changed over time. Literature's most common forms today, particularly in what we call the 'west', are poetry, fiction, song lyrics and scripts (feel free to add to this list). Poetry and fiction as they appear on the page are unaccompanied language (I say 'appear' because there is no such thing as unaccompanied language, it is just that in these instances there is no immediate accompaniment, such as music or pictures or voice). However, they developed INTO those forms. Literature did not develop OUT of those forms. They are a part of literature, but they are not the only part. The novel for example is a particular type/form of fiction/story telling which has been very successful, but at heart it is an artificial form of language use. Poetry is a far broader and far more problematic form of literature than the novel because of the huge variety of purposes and contexts in which it has been written. Form-wise, very broadly speaking, fiction developed out of oral story telling while poetry developed out of singing and chanting, but the details of these developments, though very interesting, have no bearing on the main issue. Any higher status and priority given the 'unaccompanied word' forms of literature does not disqualify the other forms from adhering to the general definition of literature I gave above. If so then this points to a much narrower and much more recent and westernised idea of literature, one which would in fact require a different definition. As an aside I don't think it would be a definition which would go down very well in the wider culture. It would be seen, quite rightly, as retrogressive and elitist.
As a writer of the stuff they call poetry, and as that poetry is written first and for-most on the page and for the page, of course I recognise its differences and possibilities compared with lyrics written to be sung. But this has got absolutely nothing to do with the above argument.
Despite the above statement re writing poetry, there is in fact no way of knowing or judging the actual strength of a particular art form as it operates/impinges (whatever word you want) on an individual sensability. While it is not important to my argument above I still think it has relevance when trying to understand the reasons behind the counter arguments - which is what draws me in this case towards a type of reception theory. I don't go along with the post-modern cultural levelling theories, but I can see where they come from and why they are so appealing. I have always found the patronising judgements on another's individual capacity for experience which are made by those artists, writers, critics and cultural philosophers with a hierarchical notion of art not just unpleasant but, more importantly, entirely unprovable.
Apologies for the length but it was unavoidable.
Cheers
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:26:45 -0500
From: Kent Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Except, Jeffrey, your endorsing paraphrase of Tim's New Historicist-like
take directly contradicts your statement earlier today (how quickly
things change!) that song is immanently superior to poetry.
>>> Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> 10/30/16 12:18 PM >>>
Tim, would it be fair to summarise your position as being encapsulated
in your following statement: ‘In order to work, to be presented,
literature needs form, but there is no predetermined form for literature
in general’. And do you mean by this, that all forms that have developed
in order to make literature manifest are only arbitrary, and, as such,
are of no significance when it comes to evaluating the validity or
importance of any one of these forms over the other? And, therefore, the
form that gives shape to what we call “poetry” is the same as that which
gives shape to what we call “song”; and, as such, it would be a mistake
for anyone to make qualitative and aesthetical distinctions between
them, given the arbitrary nature of their formation. Is this in essence
your position? Or have I assumed too much? If it is your position, it
seems a reasonable one.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:01 Tim Allen wrote:
OK - I'm not going to troll back, too tedious. I'll attempt to restate
the reason why I think the use of words within what we call a song and
the performance of that song is just as much 'literature' as the use of
words in a poem or novel.
To begin with this has absolutely nothing to do with the differences,
either in quality or manner, between the poem/lyric/words on the page
and the same in a song e.g. it has nothing to do with the quality of a
Dylan lyric compared with a page poem. Secondly it is not at base to do
with how good or bad we think Dylan is as a wordsmith because it is
possible to agree with what I am going to say below while still thinking
that Dylan doesn't deserve the prize because he is not good enough.
Literature appears to be that area of human activity concerned with the
purposeful use of words above and beyond utilitarian communication,
recording and information giving. It is part of the larger concept of
art. It involves itself both with the seemingly true and the seemingly
unreal and is closely associated both with story telling, personal
expression/exploration of feelings and opinions and imaginative
invention. (I'm sure any of us would be able to provide their own
general definition such as this one).
In order to work, to be presented, literature needs form, but there is
no predetermined form for literature in general. Different uses of
literature seem to require different forms and these forms developed and
changed over time. Literature's most common forms today, particularly in
what we call the 'west', are poetry, fiction, song lyrics and scripts
(feel free to add to this list). Poetry and fiction as they appear on
the page are unaccompanied language (I say 'appear' because there is no
such thing as unaccompanied language, it is just that in these instances
there is no immediate accompaniment, such as music or pictures or
voice). However, they developed INTO those forms. Literature did not
develop OUT of those forms. They are a part of literature, but they are
not the only part. The novel for example is a particular type/form of
fiction/story telling which has been very successful, but at heart it is
an artificial form of language use. Poetry is a far broader and far more
problematic form of literature than the novel because of the huge
variety of purposes and contexts in which it has been written.
Form-wise, very broadly speaking, fiction developed out of oral story
telling while poetry developed out of singing and chanting, but the
details of these developments, though very interesting, have no bearing
on the main issue. Any higher status and priority given the
'unaccompanied word' forms of literature does not disqualify the other
forms from adhering to the general definition of literature I gave
above. If so th
en this points to a much narrowerand westernised idea of literature, one which would in fact require a
different definition. As an aside I don't think it would be a definition
which would go down very well in the wider culture. It would be seen,
quite rightly, as retrogressive and elitist.
As a writer of the stuff they call poetry, and as that poetry is written
first and for-most on the page and for the page, of course I recognise
its differences and possibilities compared with lyrics written to be
sung. But this has got absolutely nothing to do with the above argument.
Despite the above statement re writing poetry, there is in fact no way
of knowing or judging the actual strength of a particular art form as it
operates/impinges (whatever word you want) on an individual sensability.
While it is not important to my argument above I still think it has
relevance when trying to understand the reasons behind the counter
arguments - which is what draws me in this case towards a type of
reception theory. I don't go along with the post-modern cultural
levelling theories, but I can see where they come from and why they are
so appealing. I have always found the patronising judgements on
another's individual capacity for experience which are made by those
artists, writers, critics and cultural philosophers with a hierarchical
notion of art not just unpleasant but, more importantly, entirely
unprovable.
Apologies for the length but it was unavoidable.
Cheers
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 17:49:14 +0000
From: Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]COM>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Kent,
You say:
"Tim's New Historicist-like take"
I wouldn't see Tim's position as particularly New Historicist, and he himself
describes his position (I'm quoting from memory, so Tim will correct me if I'm
wrong), as "(something like) Reception Theory".
And which branch do you mean? Greenblatt's Cultural Materialism (which uzyins
disdainfully described as, "anecdotal history"), or [Real] New Historicism,
which sees its paternity in Foucault and Lever's Tragedy of State?
Enquiring Minds Wish To Know.
:-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:00:47 -0500
From: Kent Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Hi Robin, nothing complicated here, really.
As I said, "New Historicist-like"... I was simply referring to Jeffrey's paraphrase of Tim's position, which in the most generic ways seemed to echo Foucault, in the corniest sense. I probably shouldn't have bothered to use the term, one types quickly before a whole afternoon of the Packers and the Cubs on TV. I'm sure Jeffrey's post was very quickly typed too.
Your distinction between Foucault and Greenblatt seems a little too pleading, under the circumstances. All in perspective!
salud,
Kent
>>> Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]COM> 10/30/16 12:49 PM >>>
Kent,
You say:
"Tim's New Historicist-like take"
I wouldn't see Tim's position as particularly New Historicist, and he himself describes his position (I'm quoting from memory, so Tim will correct me if I'm wrong), as "(something like) Reception Theory".
And which branch do you mean? Greenblatt's Cultural Materialism (which uzyins disdainfully described as, "anecdotal history"), or [Real] New Historicism, which sees its paternity in Foucault and Lever's Tragedy of State?
Enquiring Minds Wish To Know.
:-)
Robin
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 18:08:00 +0000
From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Kent, you might have missed it, but I started my paragraph with: ‘Speaking for myself, I find song more “powerful” than written poetry’, and ended the paragraph with: ‘I accept that this is probably an eccentric view, and is expressed here as purely an opinion’. I wasn't stating it as an absolute.
Regarding my “summary” of Tim’s position; it could be incorrect. I might have been assuming too much in it. I’ll have to wait for his reply to find out. I don’t think that if it is correct, it necessarily rules out the possibility of personal preferences to be made regarding how individuals approach songs or poetry. At least, I don’t think that is what Tim is suggesting.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:26 Kent Johnson wrote:
Except, Jeffrey, your endorsing paraphrase of Tim's New Historicist-like take directly contradicts your statement earlier today (how quickly things change!) that song is immanently superior to poetry.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:17:05 -0500
From: Kent Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Jeffrey, I fully realize you were speaking for yourself.
My point was that you were contradicting yourself!
No big deal. I am fully conversant with self-contradiction...
Kent
>>> Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> 10/30/16 1:08 PM >>>
Kent, you might have missed it, but I started my paragraph with:
‘Speaking for myself, I find song more “powerful” than written
poetry’, and ended the paragraph with: ‘I accept that this is
probably an eccentric view, and is expressed here as purely an opinion’.
I wasn't stating it as an absolute.
Regarding my “summary” of Tim’s position; it could be incorrect. I might
have been assuming too much in it. I’ll have to wait for his reply to
find out. I don’t think that if it is correct, it necessarily rules out
the possibility of personal preferences to be made regarding how
individuals approach songs or poetry. At least, I don’t think that is
what Tim is suggesting.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:26 Kent Johnson wrote:
Except, Jeffrey, your endorsing paraphrase of Tim's New Historicist-like
take directly contradicts your statement earlier today (how quickly
things change!) that song is immanently superior to poetry.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 18:32:53 +0000
From: Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Kent, I could only be contradicting myself if my summary of Tim’s position led to the conclusion that personal preferences regarding whether individuals prefer songs to poetry or vice versa should be ruled out. I don’t think it does. At least, I hope it doesn’t.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:17:05 Kent Johnson wrote:
Jeffrey, I fully realize you were speaking for yourself.
My point was that you were contradicting yourself!
No big deal. I am fully conversant with self-contradiction...
Kent
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:44:53 +0000
From: Tony Frazer <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Shearsman Reading
The final event in Shearsman's 2016 Reading Series takes place on
Tuesday, 8 November at 7:30 pm
and features
Daragh Breen and Laressa Dickey
Details of the books that will be launched on the evening:
http://www.shearsman.com/ws-shop/category/1756-2016- <http://www.shearsman.com/ws-titles/product/6122-daragh- breen---what-the-wolf-heard shop/category/1756-2016- >titles/product/6122-daragh- breen---what-the-wolf-heard
http://www.shearsman.com/ws-shop/category/1756-2016- <http://www.shearsman.com/ws-titles/product/6335-laressa- dickey---roam shop/category/1756-2016- >titles/product/6335-laressa- dickey---roam
Both our readers are coming in from long distances (Cork and Berlin respectively) and this is a chance to catch two excellent poets whom you won’t often be able to hear.
The venue is
Swedenborg Hall
Swedenborg House
20/21 Bloomsbury Way
London WC1A 2TH
Admission is free.
The entrance is around the corner on Barter Street. Closest tube stations: Holborn (Central & Piccadilly Lines: 4 minutes' walk), Tottenham Court Road (Central & Northern Lines: 6 minutes), Covent Garden (Piccadilly Line: 10 minutes). Several buses stop a few yards from the Hall, on Bloomsbury Way one side and High Holborn the other. There is an underground car park close by, beneath Bloomsbury Square. Disabled access is available, but please let us know at least 24 hours in advance if this is required.
Further details here of the venue:
http://www.shearsman.com/shearsman-reading-events
____________________________
Tony Frazer
Shearsman Books Ltd
50 Westons Hill Drive
Emersons Green
Bristol BS16 7DF
England
Tel: (+44) (0) 117-957-2957
http://www.shearsman.com/ <http://www.shearsman.com/>
____________________________
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:50:02 +0000
From: David Lace <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Appeal to moderators
Moderators. Can you please instruct people no not keep starting discussions here about songs and poetry. It's getting beyond a joke. Its going nowhere. And other matters have not been dealt with fully. For example, I'm a bit puzzled why no one has mentioned how Geraldine Monk was rude to me by using the F word to me. Jamie hasn't admitted it and no one who has seen that discussion I posted the link to has commented. Jamie said i was rude to her but how is this being rude:
[Me] "Do you only post things about your work here to get praise? Facebook is a better medium for that, it seems."
or this:
[Me] "Geraldine, sorry if you thought my reply was insulting [meaning the one above, which wasn't insulting, as can be seen]. I thought you were comparing the praise your publication announcements got on Facebook with the lack of praise for them here. It sounded as if you were complaining about not getting similar praise here. If it wasn’t a complaint then what was the reason for your post? Was it to get people to be critical of your announcements? I doubt it. I've seen many publication announcements posted here, and the vast majority have been ignored, so you shouldn’t feel singled out."
And does it warrant this from Geraldine:
[Her] "As for David Lace’s reply – he’s likes to insult people and his response is so beneath contempt I can’t even be arsed to tell him to go fuck himself. So I won’t bother."
She clearly says "to go fuck himself"--or to be exact she says she couldn't be arsed (another expletive) to, but by saying this, she is enacting what she says she isn't "arsed" to do. I have always conducted myself courteously here, despite what Jamie claims, and hope that at least a few here have seen this, and are willing to see that I was not being rude to her.
If swearing to me is not being rude then what is? It was uncalled for, and she didn't apologise for this overreaction to my perfectly reasonable comments, which included one apology--that didn't really need to be made, and was made simply out of good manners. Far from I being rude to her she was rude to me. It's a shame can't take mild criticism (was it critical anyway, and not just an attempt to find out what she was going on about) and sees it as offensive to her sense of ego.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:14:52 -0000
From: Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The use(s) of criticism
Thanks Ricky for this list – which leaves me, too, with a fair bit of catching up (at my rate that could take years) – mainly the prose of contemporary US poets of which I’ve followed very little (though I know something of the poems of most of them. On reflection, what I find surprising is the degree of overlap (I’d also include the Heaney and Auden books close to my main list...I have something of a block about Rilke’s writings on poetry, but I’ve read him quite extensively and can see why he’d be widely revered). The surprise is that I think if almost anyone here were to assemble a list of this kind regarding poets who have had a formative effect on them, the overlap with others would be far narrower. Maybe that’s to do with the multitudinous nature of poetry, at least over the last hundred years but especially over the last fifty or so. Whereas, aside from the whole academic critical industry which is equally plethoric, the ‘classics’ of literary criticism are few and far between – the great essayists are more generally respected, more shared in common. Or is it just that my reading is way past its expiry date? Just thinking aloud...
Jamie
From: Ricky Ray
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 4:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]AC.UK
Subject: Re: The use(s) of criticism
Thanks for this, Jamie--half your list is new to me. I'm going to have to take a long, hard look at my shelves, since my mind dumps 99.x% of what I read, but a selection off the top below. My list, I'm afraid, is much more recent and, in part, a result of interest in the totality of certain poets (as inclusive of their poetry, poetics, lives, etc.). Not at all proud of the recentness of it, as I generally find the quality, depth and nuance of thought to increase the further back I read in this area.
Rilke - The letters, all of them, what awakaned me to the desire for a full devotion to poetry
Valery - The Art of Poetry, in Princeton's collected works edition, was immensely valuable early on, though I recall nothing of it now
Eliot - I'll cheat and say The Complete Prose (up to Vol. 4, so far), otherwise Kermode's selection, and early/middle over most late
Hazlitt - (can't choose)
Pound - ABC of Reading and Machine Art and Other Writings
William Bronk - Vectors and Smoothable Curves
Wendell Berry - Standing by Words and Imagination in Place
John Haines - Fables and Distances
Jane Hirshfield - Nine Gates (Ten Windows has a nice piece on Basho, but on the whole suffers from over-infatuation with her style)
Hayden Carruth - Working Papers, Effluences from the Sacred Caves, Suicides and Jazzers, Reluctantly, Letters to Jane
William Stafford - The Answers Are Inside the Mountains and Crossing Unmarked Snow
U. Michigan - The poets on poetry series
On deck:
Yves Bonnefoy - The Act and the Place of Poetry,
Eleanor Wilner - Gathering the Winds
Auden - The Dyer's Hand
Heaney - Finder's Keepers and Redress of Poetry
Herbert Read - The Tenth Muse
Likewise, appallingly white and male (though Tsvetaeva and Salome are in the Rilke, and I have read all of Levertov's prose).
I'd ask the list in general to offer suggestions to correct that.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I was going to say , you first Ricky, but then thought I should answer. My list, such as it is, would also veer - pretty exclusively - towards poetry.
So:
Erich Auerbach’s Dante: Poet of the Secular World (maybe Mimesis as well but I seem only to go back to the Dante chapter in that)
Walter Benjamin: Illuminations (but there are probably better and fuller gatherings of his work now, and I’d probably include his Baudelaire)
Osip Mandelstam: Collected Prose
William Empson: On Milton’s God (probably others of his too but that’s the one I go back to)
Harold Bloom: The Visionary Company (I’m not convinced by his elaborate system that gets more complicated after The Anxiety of Influence but still find that compelling as well.)
Donald Davies: After Briggflats and Against the Grain (maybe he’d be in a second list but I’ve read him more recently...)
Teodolinda Barolini: The Undivine Comedy: Detheologizing Dante (this might seem the most conventionally academic but the argument isn’t so at all, and its observations about almost every passage of the poem are illuminating.)
Richard Poirier: Frost: The Work of Knowing (haven’t read that for a while, so I might have changed my view...)
Tom Paulin’s Minotaur (and his book on Hardy The Poetry of Perception is also a cracker)
Then for disparate essays, most of the collections of Randall Jarrell; for that among contemporaries Michael Hofmann’s Between the Lines and Where Have You Been? – both of these as good on prose as on poetry. For prose criticism Lionel Trilling, and anyway most of what he writes is of interest, except I got nowhere with his novel. For a dazzling mixture of reflections on history, art, poetry and prose Gustaw Herling-Grudziński: Miracle and Volcano (a selection from his Night Journal).
Further back, most of Hazlitt. Bits of Coleridge. A fair amount of Croce, Pasolini and Montale. Pound’s ABC of Reading – though I don’t really think it’s literary criticism more like propaganda. Eliot might be an important critic and I’ve reread most of him but the tone of gelid authority puts me off. I’m sure I’m missing something...
3 Germans, 3 US, 3 Brits (if I include Ted Hughes’s Autumn Pollen as an afterthought), 1 Russian, 1 Irish and 1 Pole – the gender imbalance looks appalling (Tsvetaeva, though, close by, and some essays by Vendler...)
The list probably looks random and dated but these are among the few books of criticism I’ve ever read twice or often refer back to, and all of them seem to me to raise criticism to an art, whether or not I agree with the writer’s views.
And yours?
Jamie
From: Ricky Ray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 6:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]AC.UK
Subject: Re: The use(s) of criticism
I definitely have a "lit crit" or more precisely "po crit" fetish, mostly in search of new ways to think about poetry, glimmerings of insights from lives spent practicing/considering the art, and pathways towards new (or mostly old) authors/works to appreciate. Bit of autobiography, gossip and rant in the midst doesn't hurt. Would like to see your list, dozen or half, Jamie, if you're up for sharing.
Ricky
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
A spin-off question from that last, would also cover literary criticism. Here, mostly for non-academic, let's call it semi-amateur, interest, I find myself far more engaged. Writing to someone recently about this, I found I was listing - as essential, formative critical books - some half-dozen. Then after brief reflection the number had doubled. Though it's obviously 'secondary' in its relation to primary texts, I can't help considering literary criticism as an art form in itself.
Jamie
> On 27 Oct 2016, at 18:20, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:52:10 -0000
From: Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
Tim, I feel a certain responsibility for having set off this mad hare about ‘literature’ with my first post about Dylan – which I meant as a slightly self-parodying gesture without knowing (as someone/yourself said) this had become a hot topic on facebook, so it was already wound up and ready to course. I’m afraid for me the word ‘literature’, apart from being a handy heading for academic courses, is almost a term of abuse. The Greeks managed pretty well without it. There’s poetry, and then there’s...the rest – no, I’m just messing.
All of this anyway is helpfully clear, unlike my own contributions.
I think you’ve made a good case throughout as to why, for you as a reader/listener as well as a practicing poet, there’s just no point in making any distinction between song and poem.
I’ve made my case for the difference in that the rhythms of speech on which poetry relies, but not exclusively (as, for example, ‘sprung rhythm’ at least to my ear reads like a brilliant, deliberate synthesis of speech rhythms and song) make poetry a form whose effects have happily veered away from what is possible in song (usually a lot less on the level of language) – a divorce, if you like, which has been very much to the advantage of poetry’s resources, quite a few of which I’ve mentioned. I’ve made the case but I don’t think it has convinced many people. Someone with more knowledge about beat and tempo in music might have made it more convincingly.
Rather than trying to prove poetry’s superiority to song, my impulse was to defend the poetry’s autonomy (its sad world of ‘fandom’ and academics as someone belittlingly said) – for which I’m not really concerned about the perception of elitism which has been mentioned. I consider that largely misrepresentation. I’m more galled by the idea that poetry is to be seen as insignificant beside the grand idols of popular music and should try to make itself more like them, without, of course, the aid of the huge commercial industry that underwrites them.
I don’t think that we greatly disagree on that last point.
Jamie
From: Tim Allen
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 4:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]AC.UK
Subject: Re: The "problem" of prosody
OK - I'm not going to troll back, too tedious. I'll attempt to restate the reason why I think the use of words within what we call a song and the performance of that song is just as much 'literature' as the use of words in a poem or novel.
To begin with this has absolutely nothing to do with the differences, either in quality or manner, between the poem/lyric/words on the page and the same in a song e.g. it has nothing to do with the quality of a Dylan lyric compared with a page poem. Secondly it is not at base to do with how good or bad we think Dylan is as a wordsmith because it is possible to agree with what I am going to say below while still thinking that Dylan doesn't deserve the prize because he is not good enough.
Literature appears to be that area of human activity concerned with the purposeful use of words above and beyond utilitarian communication, recording and information giving. It is part of the larger concept of art. It involves itself both with the seemingly true and the seemingly unreal and is closely associated both with story telling, personal expression/exploration of feelings and opinions and imaginative invention. (I'm sure any of us would be able to provide their own general definition such as this one).
In order to work, to be presented, literature needs form, but there is no predetermined form for literature in general. Different uses of literature seem to require different forms and these forms developed and changed over time. Literature's most common forms today, particularly in what we call the 'west', are poetry, fiction, song lyrics and scripts (feel free to add to this list). Poetry and fiction as they appear on the page are unaccompanied language (I say 'appear' because there is no such thing as unaccompanied language, it is just that in these instances there is no immediate accompaniment, such as music or pictures or voice). However, they developed INTO those forms. Literature did not develop OUT of those forms. They are a part of literature, but they are not the only part. The novel for example is a particular type/form of fiction/story telling which has been very successful, but at heart it is an artificial form of language use. Poetry is a far broader and far more problematic form of literature than the novel because of the huge variety of purposes and contexts in which it has been written. Form-wise, very broadly speaking, fiction developed out of oral story telling while poetry developed out of singing and chanting, but the details of these developments, though very interesting, have no bearing on the main issue. Any higher status and priority given the 'unaccompanied word' forms of literature does not disqualify the other forms from adhering to the general definition of literature I gave above. If so then this points to a much narrower and much more recent and westernised idea of literature, one which would in fact require a different definition. As an aside I don't think it would be a definition which would go down very well in the wider culture. It would be seen, quite rightly, as retrogressive and elitist.
As a writer of the stuff they call poetry, and as that poetry is written first and for-most on the page and for the page, of course I recognise its differences and possibilities compared with lyrics written to be sung. But this has got absolutely nothing to do with the above argument.
Despite the above statement re writing poetry, there is in fact no way of knowing or judging the actual strength of a particular art form as it operates/impinges (whatever word you want) on an individual sensability. While it is not important to my argument above I still think it has relevance when trying to understand the reasons behind the counter arguments - which is what draws me in this case towards a type of reception theory. I don't go along with the post-modern cultural levelling theories, but I can see where they come from and why they are so appealing. I have always found the patronising judgements on another's individual capacity for experience which are made by those artists, writers, critics and cultural philosophers with a hierarchical notion of art not just unpleasant but, more importantly, entirely unprovable.
Apologies for the length but it was unavoidable.
Cheers
Tim
On 29 Oct 2016, at 17:07, Jeffrey Side wrote:
“If you look at my reasons for backing up the Dylan thing you should see that my argument is not dependant on this lyric/poem thing.”
Can you explain this? I must have missed that part of the discussion.
------------------------------
End of BRITISH-IRISH-POETS Digest - 29 Oct 2016 to 30 Oct 2016 (#2016-226)
************************************************************ ************** --Connie Voisine
Associate Professor of English
New Mexico State University
[log in to unmask]
575-646-2027