 |
 |
Well, they say that in Modernism the subject is the object, so that "it is not about anything". They've now gone wild for Prynne's "disruption of scientific discourse", so that#s funny. I'm still really interested in 'sentiment'. Cheers, Luke On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Likely the latter, and really argumentative as well. I won't go through > our endless back and forth to find his exact phrasing. Think he means that > a) there's no point in making sense of a poem without using theory, and b) > that usual poetoic devices such as metaphor, or even studies of anything > else at all, is insignficant. > > Luke > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Tim Allen <0000002899e7d020-dmarc- > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> How can poetry be 'not about anything' while at the same time being 'an >> extension of philosophical / semiotic theory' - which to me sounds like >> quite a big thing to be about. I think your friend is confused, or >> deliberately confusing. >> >> On 9 Sep 2017, at 11:20, Luke wrote: >> >> I have little idea what those terms mean, out of context, besides being >> very intimidating. He cited a spoof article by Prynne on plants to prove >> that the interest in "non poetic discourses" is spoofed, and that >> comtemporary poetry is not about anything, it's just an extension of >> philosophical / semiotic theory. >> >> >> >