Yeah, agreed,
and remind me to excise the relevant 15 pages from my copy of Fulcrum when it arrives.
Roger Collett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Day" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: Manipulation (no longer Re: New at Sharp Sand)
> I've missed nothing, Joe. I just dislike you, your manner and your writing.
>
> Roger
>
> On 10/30/07, joe green <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Just in case you missed it.
>>
>> Joseph Duemer wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Andrew. I wonder what other poets, loved in youth, flist
>>
>> members have had to reevaluate.
>>
>> Joe Green responded: None, I never liked bad poetry.
>>
>> Joe Green is quoted: "None, I never liked bad poetry."
>>
>> Joseph Duemer wrote: So, you just write it?
>>
>> So, as you can see, the only decent thing to do is to ask for an apology
>> from Joe Duemer also.
>> Or is he somehow justified?
>>
>> If so, please inform the editors at Fulcrum and tell them to cancel my 15
>> pages of execrable verse in the next issue.
>>
>> Or should I do it for you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/07, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > if JG gets to run poetryetc, I'm outahere.
>> >
>> > Roger
>> >
>> > On 10/30/07, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> 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]
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
>> > "In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons."
>> > Roman Proverb
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> "In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons."
> Roman Proverb
>
> --
> This email has been verified as Virus free
> Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
>
|