 |
 |
> It might be more reassuring if ‘many important 20th poets’ had profited from being students of writing g.o.a.t learns more from their students. cheers, Luke On 24 December 2017 at 17:59, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I think you’re right on both counts, Luke - that things *can* be taught > on these courses and that it’s difficult for the reasons you give and for > other complexities to do with individual sympathy for whatever goals as > well as adjustment and flexibility of perspective required by both student > and teacher. For which reason, I usually prefer teaching literature to CW. > It might be more reassuring if ‘many important 20th poets’ had profited > from being students of writing rather than having ‘had writing students’? > J > > Sent from my iPad > > On 24 Dec 2017, at 17:36, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I'm sitting a CW course, and my impression is that it's a myth that > writing can't be taught, but that it's especially difficult, due to the > different starting points and goals of students, compared to something like > chem or physics. It's also reassuring that it seems many important 20th > century poets have had writing students. > > Luke > > On 24 December 2017 at 17:32, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Hi Jeff, >> Only a minor complaint, probably worse because I’m tired, and I see >> it’s not worth the labour of reformatting. >> Others here would be better positioned than me to comment on the >> distribution of poetry from and coverage of it within the academy. With >> creative writing courses, as Peter noted, the whole area has changed, but I >> was referring more to critical reception within literature depts that >> naturally are more focussed on the past. The different presses, whether >> favouring one or other kinds of poetry, would all work against what you >> call a ‘centralised’ effect, and poetry manages to be both central and >> marginal in ways that can both be good... >> Jamie >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On 24 Dec 2017, at 16:17, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Jamie, yes, the white on black format is hard to read for some people — >> I’ve had a few complaints about it over the years. Unfortunately, it’s >> impossible for me to change it to something more universally “readable” due >> to my lack of anything more than rudimentary web designing knowledge, and >> having created the site using a now obsolete web-building program. >> > >> > It has been suggested that I migrate the site to a modern web-building >> program, but after looking into the technicalities of this, it would mean >> the text-size, font choice, line spacing and paragraph breaks that exist >> now would be lost due to the “translation” problems between the old >> web-building program and a new one. This would mean I would have to >> manually correct each page—and there are nearly a thousand pages. >> > >> > I have found, though, that if one uses the zoom function or text size >> facility on most modern browsers, then the white on black format is less >> problematical. I do sympathise with you about it, though. >> > >> > Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding of academia as it >> operates within avant-garde poetry is that it has no real counterpart in >> mainstream poetry. It seems to me, that mainstream poetry is less >> centralised — in the sense that it seems more disparately organised and >> disseminated (almost hobbyist-like — I mean that respectfully) than is the >> case with academic avant-garde poetry, which seems to me to have become >> something of a production line in recent years. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 24 Dec 2017 Jamie McKendrick wrote: >> > >> > I find the argotist format of white on black so hard to read and >> headache-inducing that I couldn’t give the article the attention it >> deserves. I know it’s a feature, Jeff, but it might be worth rethinking? >> > I did read the list’s exchange about the new magazine - what happened >> to it by the way? - which Jeff had helpfully compiled. I thought it lively >> and engaged and noticed how many women used to write on this site and the >> vitality on both sides of the argument had a great deal to do with that. >> > The debate became a bit bogged down in what I’d consider the >> (legitimate but very) subsidiary question of peer-reviewing but the range >> of perspectives made me feel uneasy about my throw-away couple of comments >> earlier in the present thread. Peter’s right that there are a few >> university depts which engage with contemporary poetry, almost all (leaving >> aside a couple of big names) with what we call the ‘innovative’ side of >> things. I’m curious about the reasons for this, which I suspect are many. >> It’s crossed my mind that the prohibitive costs charged by the commercial >> presses even to quote poems would further discourage academics, already >> de-incentivised, to enter this inglorious field. >> > A glittery xmas (if that’s a good thing) and not so indigent new year >> to all, >> > Jamie >> > >> > >> > Sent from my iPad >> > >> >> On 24 Dec 2017, at 14:27, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Tim, I think your article was ignored (as was the wider feature it was >> relating to) because most, if not all, of the people supportive of (and >> professionally involved with) the “academic avant-garde poetry project” >> don’t want to give any dissenting voices of the project the oxygen of >> publicity. Even to such an extremely balanced assessment of it that your >> article proved to be. One can’t blame them, I suppose, as no one likes >> criticism. But that not a single “member” of that “body” came forward to >> comment, is beyond explanation. For a while, I thought that whoever is in >> charge of the “movement” told them not to. That last sentence is meant to >> be tongue-in-cheek, by the way—unless, of course, it is, indeed, some kind >> of coordinated movement. Will we ever know? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Dec 2017 Tim Allen wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Luke - thanks for reading the article. I haven't got in on this >> thread because I've been away and a bit busy. >> >> >> >> I tried to do too much in that article while not spending enough time >> on the different issues - so I think some of the issues get lost in the >> mix. I also tried to be fair - too fair maybe, even though some of the >> stuff I say in there could be taken badly by some in academia. But very few >> people have contacted or spoken to me about it so I doubt if many have >> actually read it to the end. It's really a sociological essay, but one >> based on my own experience and intuition. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Tim >> >> >> >>> On 22 Dec 2017, at 13:51, Luke wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Well maybe it's unhelpful, and all I mean is that institutions ought >> not be super hermetic. >> >> >> >> Here I was just repeating myself. >> >> >> >>>>> As I reader I could appreciate both, just as at times I did not; >> the worst of the smooth and glossy seemed to offer little but that >> smoothness and glossiness just as the worst of the other stuff seemed to >> offer little more than its wild jaggedness and aggression—both could be as >> boring as hell. >> >> >> >> Another quote from Tim's article. >> >> >> >>> Analogously to what Peter said about academies (plural) >> >> >> >> I am referring to Peter Riley's last email to the list >> >> >> >>> non academics aren't a single entity, even in their relation to the >> academy. >> >> >> >> And suggesting it's true of anything. >> > Top of Mess >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >