 |
 |
blimey I just try to write poems -this old head spins -best of luck P old and grumpy On 11/08/2017 18:35, Luke wrote: > Hi, > > The resume was lots trickier to write into something coherent than I > was expecting. I think the whole essay is just too unfocused, which is > a shame, though I'll post this now anyway, seeing as I started this > thread: > > *My aim is to quote based on theory and not novelty.* I begin by > claiming that, due to anxiety, I write poems which could be read as > ambiguous New Critical wholes, but only as speech. I show how this > means that as speech they can resolve into a single moment with a > shifting meaning. I then add that this can be written as two layers of > narrative, meaning that in my poems quotation can appear both as > reified speech and not. Quotation then is superficially worked into > the reified present moment, and so novel, while at the same time > antagonistic with that. > > Thanks for the replies, > > Luke > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Tim Allen > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Right this is you Luke not jamie. > > I don't think you can separate present 'expectations and > standards' from past ones. Where would the dividing line be? So > not sure if that is what you actually mean, in which case I agree, > or do you mean that the two are separate therefore either could be > used? In that case depending on what? > > Expectations (still think that is the wrong word) and standards > change through time, of course, but the changes can be abrupt and > radical or gradual and conservative, and anything in-between. The > important thing is that there is always a relationship, always a > dynamic. But we don't 'choose' our expectations (which relates to > what I said in my other post), so we cannot pick one over the > other. I cannot suddenly choose to 'judge' a poem by the > expectations and standards of the New Criticism or whatever - > though it might make an interesting exercise. > > Cheers > > Tim > > On 11 Aug 2017, at 15:24, Luke wrote: > >> but was more trying to suggest that "expectations and standards" >> need not be that of the present, contemporary etc.. > >