----- Original Message -----
From: "Alison Croggon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Dead ends
> The odd thing, Frederick, is that all the things I've read by you in
> this thread are extraordinarily prescriptive! A whole collection of
> implicit "shoulds"! I do think most interesting works of any kind
> teach you how to read them; whether that means they are also claiming
> to be the only way to make meaning seems absolutely moot to me. In any
> case, I prefer having the widest possible menu of options open to me,
> as a writer and reader. The fact remains that thinking about poetry -
> theory, philosophy, critical writings of all kinds - has always fed in
> and out of its practice, way back to Aristotle. And can be evidence of
> life as much as death. It's dogmatism of any kind that's the killer.
>
> xA
> --
> Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
> Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
>
In suggesting that the content of any poetry is a vision (whether critical
or received) of its society, I wasn't making a prescriptive judgment, only
describing what I think is. Likewise the statement that style is a function
of content, whether the stylist sees it that way or not. I have nothing
against eclecticism; any good thought or style will assimilate other
thoughts or styles to some degree. But eclecticism per se is opportunistic;
it's impossible unless other people have been rigorous and consistent,
"dogmatically" or not. There is no synthesis without theses.
|