>How do we bridge the gaps which exist between our various definitions
>of poetry? Do we give each the freedom to believe our various definitions?
There probably aren't gaps: the positions cross over and there's the point
>Or do we hang tough with our personal definitions of poetry as the only
If one is hanging tough one can at least see the other rungs that one could
swing from? A study of a poetics - say, one from the Russian Futurists -
alien to one's own viewpoint can still be stimulating?
>The latter question, problem, reminds me of the situation between
>and Muslims, or in the US, Republicans and Democrats. There very seldom
>is a bridge because both have the only definition.
I don't feel militant about any position. If one person is "quite a crowd"
(Deleuze) then it follows that our viewpoints will sway and sometimes dart
>I can think of one solution. My wife pokes fun at me when I pontificate
>the soapbox and eventually I have to laugh at my "all-knowing" judgements.
Yes, the laugh is one form of reflexive irony, and therefore contributes to
a multi-angled debate...