I'm with Anny here. I really can't stand this. I mean, I can delete
threads without reading them, but I just don't want to be a part of a
flame-war list.
Anny Ballardini wrote:
> I would like to ask Joe Green to apologize. I noticed the games "I am better
> than you" thing. We try to prevent bullism at school starting from the
> Elementary, at High School it has almost disappeared. It seems instead that
> it is alive here.
>
> Best,
> Co-manager in the Foucault sense
> Anny Ballardini
>
>
> On 10/30/07, Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Seriously, the search is on for another list manager.
>>
>> jd
>>
>> 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/<
>>>>>>>
>> http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edbarbour/>
>>
>>>>>>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Duemer
>> Professor of Humanities
>> Clarkson University
>> [sharpsand.net]
>>
>>
>
>
--
Tad Richards
http://www.opus40.org/tadrichards/
http://opusforty.blogspot.com/
|