"& we probably each construct & then deconstruct our own 'rules' as we
learn more about & keep changing the game...."
well put, I probably agree with that
KS
On 16/02/07, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If there a is even one rule for poetry it might be this:
>
> 'There are no rules of poetry (& these are what they are).'
>
> Although I do confess it's taken me many years to fully understand
> this....
>
> & we probably each construct & then deconstruct our own 'rules' as we
> learn more about & keep changing the game....
>
> I used to be pretty sure what 'defined' a poem, & then one would come
> along that broke the definition, so I'd widen it, & then, etc. I
> finally stopped internalizing such definitions....
>
> Doug
> On 15-Feb-07, at 1:45 PM, kasper salonen wrote:
>
> > a poem should never have the word 'poet' or 'poem' in them, as an
> > undeviating rule.
> > a poem about _the_ poet is even wronger.
> Douglas Barbour
> 11655 - 72 Avenue NW
> Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
> (780) 436 3320
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
> Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>
>
> the precision of openness
> is not a vagueness
> it is an accumulation
> cumulous
>
> bpNichol
>
|