Hey guys, this is way too much. Everybody take a few deep breaths.
At 01:28 PM 10/30/2007, you wrote:
>Joe, would you like to run Poetryetc? I'll be glad to hand you the keys &
>get the hell out of town. Your relentless anti-academic, anti-intellectual
>bullshit has finally just gotten me down. You win. Really, it's yours. I'll
>resent the list to make you owner -- just give me the word. I mean, you'd be
>great because you know everything already & if anyone has any questions they
>can just ask you & that will settle the issue.
>
>jd
>
>
>
>On 10/30/07, joe green <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Do you consider the reader's need to not read a composition based on what
> > you think the reader needs? Seems so very odd... and seems like a formula
> > for endless repetition of the same.
> >
> > Seems to have its origins in didactic poesy and seems quite 19th century.
> > Almost schoolmarmish. Wordsworth began "The Prelude" as an attempt to
> > justify his poetry -- why should anyone listen to him?.... and then kept
> > on
> > revising it until he brought it to ruins. Thinking of the reader had a
> > lot
> > to do with that. The first prelude wild and open to contradiction and not
> > fully comprehended even by the poet. The revisions all occasioned by a
> > didactic impulse with a sense of not having to demonstrate what was
> > assumed
> > to have been shown.
> >
> > I like Eliot's suggestion that a poem is judged by all other poems --
> > those
> > poems are the readers in a sense. They are not troubled by theoretical
> > grounds immersed in what is quite secondary and of a certain time.
> >
> > But I acknowledge that these ideas of how a poem is made are accepted by
> > the
> > general public and I suspect that they are created by the workshop
> > mentality
> > and determined by the enabling conviction that one can be taught to write
> > poetry. And that many are qualified to do so!
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Martin, if you're on shaky theoretical ground then so am I. I often find
> > > myself anticipating what I think of as my readers' needs. I want to put
> > > things together in such a way that a reader will have some reactions and
> > > not
> > > have others.
> > >
> > > jd
> > >
> > > On 10/30/07, Martin Dolan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On the question of whether "a writer seeks to manipulate a desired
> > > > audience", the question very much seems to be one of intention.
> > > > Manipulation in this case definitely has implications of trying to
> > > > obtain an advantage or an unfair outcome - unfavourable intent.
> > > >
> > > > If we used a less value-laden description (influence, perhaps), it
> > > > strikes me that I - perhaps alone! - often set out to influence others
> > > > through some of my poems, at least by evoking an response. I get an
> > > > uneasy feeling that I'm on suspect theoretical ground here, but hey, I
> > > > don't claim I'm successful in my intent.
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Barbour wrote:
> > > > > Oh [probably, Roger, in which case everyone is 'sincere'...
> > > > >
> > > > > But Mark was talking, if I remember rightly, about whether or not a
> > > > > writer seeks to manipulate a desired audience. I guess that's a kind
> > > > > of intention, whether or not it actually works?
> > > > >
> > > > > I would tend to agree that we're always readers, but then I
> > > > > immediately begin to wonder if that's right, too....
> > > > >
> > > > > My more serious point in that post had to do with that question of
> > > > > craft, which as readers we can, I guess, only intuit, out of a
> > > > > sensibility constructed by all our (other) reading....
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug
> > > > > On 28-Oct-07, at 3:12 AM, Roger Day wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Outside v inside readings - isnt that some form of false dichotomy?
> > > > >> Neither exists as we're only readers and we impose our own
> > > > >> rose-coloured glasses on everything we read. I thought we'd
> > excluded
> > > > >> intentional fallacies?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Roger
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > It's the first lesson, loss.
> > > > > Who hasn't tried to learn it
> > > > > at the hands of wind or thieves?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan Zwicky
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joseph Duemer
> > > Professor of Humanities
> > > Clarkson University
> > > [sharpsand.net]
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Joseph Duemer
>Professor of Humanities
>Clarkson University
>[sharpsand.net]
|