Dear Kasper,

thank you for your detailed post.

Your speculation about my feelings about negativity and criticism is 
speculation.
 I am all for discussion. My post was my contribution to the discussion.

best

Randolph

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kasper" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: [POETRYETC] O my america


> no need to get upset over a differing opinion folks! defensiveness
> doesn't demonstrate character.
> Mark said it struck him as a contrivance, not that it was one. an
> assertion like that would be worth a bit of indignation, but not a
> genuine opinion, contrary to what the author may have preferred though
> it may be.
> criticism seems a very sparse thing on this mailinglist, on the few
> occasions I've seen some it has been met not with open-mindedness &
> DISCUSSION but with defenses & accusations. in my opinion any reaction
> toward criticism that isn't abusive is amateurish.
> Randolph, you would prefer positive responses to honest ones? one
> doesn't exclude the other, true, but if Mark's reactions are his own
> reaction & opinion (and since we aren't teenagers here, I don't see
> any reason to think otherwise), why should anyone have a problem with
> that? unless one has a problem with 'negativity' & criticism in
> general, which for a writer is a bad thing. a terrible thing. ('cheap
> contrivance' is rather harshly put, but instead of saying "fuck what
> you said about my poem", something like "what do you mean by that?"
> would feel a little more sensible)
>
>
> anyway. I was very impressed by the poem's language; both its sounds &
> its images. it's elegant in a complex, unabating way but it's also a
> rather cluttered piece, & I do concur with Mark that it is abstract in
> the extreme. how people respond to abstraction is partly personal
> taste, partly guided by elements of the abstract piece itself.
> I adore this poem as something to be first just listened to, & next
> deciphered. a great poem should do both, maybe, but I find that in
> this case the poem doesn't give the deciphering a chance. injecting "o
> america" into a poem can have a way of seeming to be a justifier for
> lack of control over said poem's symbolism; it also weights the poem
> with an entire era of reference, an entire volume of historiography. I
> don't believe it can be done with the same cynical fervour that
> Ginsberg did it in anymore; without a sense of humour it hoists upon
> itself decades of poetry about America & the waning power of dramatic
> demonisaton. (Mark, interestingly enough, an american poet friend of
> mine by the name of Alex Fear wrote a poem demonising not only america
> but 'the universe', referring only to an encompassing character called
> Randy [the poem's name is "Discharging Randy Universe"]; not far from
> Alison/Daniel/Stephen/&c.)
>
> but being a wholly symbolic piece, maybe something can be gained by
> looking at the connotations (I prefer 'connotations' to 'meanings')
> here. I realise now, by the way, that the title of the poem is
> absolutely horrendous. but let's see.
>
> "o the ice pick sings
>      its hot orange
>              in the vendetta tree
>      such tales for telling
> through these numb fingers
>                           one by one"
>
> an ice pick is used to climb upwards, to provide a foothold, to
> exercise control over a challenging immediate environment (ice!). it's
> also a sharp & weapon-like tool which in many contexts is identified
> first as a weapon & only second as a professional tool (Trotsky was
> killed with one wasn't he?); "hot orange" appears to refer to blood.
> blood in the body is warm, & orange is close to red; orange is a
> slightly unreal colour as well, uncommon in the natural/biological
> world. it makes the implication of violence a little unreal as well;
> this unreality along with the ice pick (a tool which 'inadvertently',
> 'against its nature', causes harm) & these with the concept of a
> "vendetta" point toward a lack of clarity as to cause, effect, blame,
> guilt, consequence.. ideas that don't feel entirely irrelevant when
> looking at america's lifespan. as for "[vendetta] tree"; a tree is a
> strange place to find an ice pick, isn't it? it's being used in a
> place it isn't supposed to be, presumably for a task it isn't supposed
> to be used for.
>
> sorry if this is long-winded; it's much less so before it's put into
> language, I swear.
>
> "such tales for telling [through ... fingers]" could refer to
> dishonesty; a 'tale' can be a lie or an exaggeration, & telling
> something through or from behind something (teeth, hands, smiles) has
> the general insinuation of fishy business. the first three lines of
> the poem are indirect in the absolute extreme; not lies, but not
> honest either. the symbols are given "one by one". the fingers are
> numb from gripping the ice pick, presumably.
>
> "rubies such as never seen
>       in the caught months
>                  of a fatal spring
>                            sad & toxic"
>
> the rubies, apparently, are the same as the tales; or perhaps the
> benefits of the tales. spring refers to beginnings, early times; I'd
> certainly call america's beginnings fatal, sad, toxic. what with the
> usurping & all ('beads' are mentioned later). perhaps that is what the
> ice pick caused? the _first_ thing it caused in a long chain of
> similar causes?
>
> I'd analyse the second part as well, but I'm too lazy. :) in fact,
> it's not that I'm lazy or incapable, but I'm discouraged because I get
> little satisfaction from unraveling to myself what all these zooming
> symbols appear to be on about. these aren't new thoughts; which is
> perfectly fine, all literature/poetry does is recycle the old & the
> universal. but these aren't universal either; they are specific to
> America. this has been done thousands of times. I'm acquained with
> several american poets, all of whom take america's
> deterioration/vehemence as a theme in their work (whether from time to
> time or as a running motif), & the reason their work is fantastic
> isn't _only_ that their grasp of imagery & language is so good, but
> also that they don't take America's deterioration/vehemence as the
> poem's main item of inspection, but as a measured, controlled
> metaphor. this poem (Alison's) is not subtle at all, which is what
> would make it flaccid if it were badly written; because it _is_ so
> well written, it's stiff instead.
>
>
> there's some thoughts. DISCUSS. :)
>
> K       S
>
>
> On 13/09/06, wild honey press <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Just had a look at e-mail after a long, but not unpleasant day.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>> "cheap contrivance" ??? do you prefer the expensive kind? And the "cost" 
>> of
>> a poem as an indicator of its quality doesn't seem to hold water.
>>
>> But to get to the point, I can't remember the last time your posted 
>> anything
>> positive in response to Alison.
>> I'd hate to think you were getting predictable, or even, unjust.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Randolph
>>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1753 (20060912) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>