Oh, piffle. A magnificent job of partial research tho. What was the
occasion? Justice, one assumes.
All of the above (unlike, for example, Mr. Day's remarks, are not directed
at anyone's person and staging. That is obvious.
Let's take them in order
"When he won the prize I expected to see him featured on the most popular
poetry blog on the internet but nary a word -- even tho he was connected
with Spicer and Blaser. Nothing..maybe because he was now associated with
the school of Quietude."
This simply states a fact. Landis very big in the circles Ron loves to
write about but when he won that prize...nary a word. Here I merely
speculate that perhaps the connection to the school of quietude the reason.
If you think that unlikely then you seem to not be paying attention.
The "doggerel" (a blissome poem I think) You post only excerpts and here
Ron is pissing on me. How is that an attack on the old fellow? His prose
style is not his person. And I am the one micturated upon.
The Silliman perplex is exactly a criticism of his literary theories.
Nothing about him. His ideas seem grotesque and his continuing division of
the poetry world simplistic. I have posted about this -- in the very style
you might seem to want.
R. Loden's remarks concern the Jacket article on humor in poetry. She can't
understand my remarks. God knows why. I found it wanting. She construes
it as an insane attack on poor Ron. No -- I attack the ideas.
It's obvious that your righteousness is rather suspect. I am saddened.
Y
On Dec 3, 2007 5:31 PM, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Are we reading the same emails? If we are, your usual impeccable
> analysis is way off beam. Besides inventing several straw-men to
> berate - libel, wtf? - this is talking about a *series* (that's more
> than one, that's a lot more than just this doggerel, that's a
> continuing series of, indeed, multiple instances, a serial abuser,
> counting one, two, three, four) of ad hominen attacks against RS. Crit
> RS's work - fine. Crit that until the cows come home, and that's
> great. Unfortunately, I think that JG has stepped over the line
> several times, and not just in that little "ditty".
>
> love and love
>
> Roger
>
> On Dec 3, 2007 11:15 PM, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > <<4. No personal attacks against other members of the list will be
> > allowed. Criticism of anyone, whether a member of the list or not,
> > should be directed at the person's ideas or work, not at the person.>>
> >
> > how is that little ditty an attack? the micturation is a bit of a low
> > blow, but the humour is unmistakable; and while the crude passive
> > aggression is also detectable, I think there's a lighter way to see
> > things. there's a long ways to go from opinionated wit to libel,
> > especially in a subjective artform that is mainly for the purpose of
> > entertainment & asethetic than for agenda-pushing. let Joe have his
> > opinions, and let him state them -- at least this short 'doggerel'
> > exhibits no ill will to me, and civility, Roger, is not the same as
> > potential blandness or repressiveness. this isn't a military
> > establishment -- it's all, in principle, in good fun.
>
> Taken in the continuing context of JG's sniping and attacks at the ,
> it's not just fun anymore, if it was "fun" at all in the beginning.
>
> > I think it should in fact be considered a fun thing to have someone be
> > the object of criticism-via-poetry. not an honour necessarily, but
> > certainly nothing to threaten any person's person. Barry quoted Rachel
> > Loden as saying "... I simply don't agree with this." that's the whole
> > point; people agree & disagree, and are very much free to express
> > those opinions -- especially through verse [on a poetry list] which I,
> > personally, find amusing & rather well played much of the time. I
> > think the issue appears to be more about person (A) voicing his mild
> > dislike of figure (F) whom other people (B) admire, and these other
> > people appear to be standing up FOR this figure they admire and
> > AGAINST person (A)'s opinions. let people believe what they want, and
> > don't just tell them to keep it to themselves, is what I say. the
> > micturation is an obvious jab not only towards the poem's, uh,
> > antagonist but also towards the readers of the poem -- "He made RS
> > micturate on him in a poem, that's so terrible!" it's meant to get a
> > rise out, which is pretty childish admittedly; but I view it as
> > harmless myself. I like a bit of childish, boorish, unambiguous
> > witticism every now & again.
> >
> > <<The list is unmoderated and depends on the good will
> > of members to maintain a useful and productive environment for
> > conversation>>
> >
> > useful & productive? why the utilitarianism? plus, in a sense it could
> > be considered MORE civil to voice opposing opinion through limerick
> > than through argumentation. at least there's no proselytising or
> > gavel-beating as such. just light provocation -- although I can see
> > why list administrators would be worried about something like that.
> >
> > I just hope academia doesn't eventually make me take everything too
> seriously.
> --
> My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> "In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons."
> Roman Proverb
>
--
Joseph Green
The Pleasant Reviewer
Headmaster, St. John Boscoe Laboratory School
Switchboard Captain, Hollywood Colonial Hotel
All complaints shall be directed to:
Camelopard Breathwaite
The Fallows, 200 Fifth Avenue, Fredonia City
"That's Double Dependability"
Brought to you by Zenith Trans-Cosmic Radio
|