Worshipful, indeed! Toy with me no more, you tri-lingual buhaunanren
[that's Mandarin Chinese]----I'm orf to my Hungarian schnitzel in an
authentic kocs [original Hungarian for 'coach'], and plan to read my poems
in their original language!
so there! you toy boy, you!
lazy bloke!
Judy
2009/5/11 Martin Walker <[log in to unmask]>
> Dear Woeful One, I'll give you a rundown of the meanings of "Schnecke":
> 1. snail 2. snail-shaped pastry 3. attractive young woman (chick, doll etc)
> 4. thread on a screw (as in turn of the screw...) 5. the cochlea 6. the
> scroll at the end of a string instrument's fingerboard.
> Now, I probably meant one of them. You may choose the one you prefer. So
> how do we translate "du faule Schnecke"? - given that "faul" means lazy or
> rotten that gives us quite a range. So much for clear translation. And
> possibly Judyspeak is only clear to you. -
> worshipfully
> mj
> Wenn vollkommene Herrschaft über seinen Gegenstand die freie kunstreiche
> Ausbildung desselben möglich macht, so können doch die künstlichen
> Schraubengänge der Polemik nicht die Form der Philosophie sein.
> If perfect mastery of one's subject makes its free, artistic development
> possible, then the merely artificial turns of the polemical screw cannot be
> the form of philosophy.
> F.W.J. Schelling
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Judy Prince
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Thoughtmesh Snap
>
>
> You see, Martin??!! Even Kasper speaks Schellingspreche!!! YAKK! E'en
> the
> yout' are trained to fooldom and bumblewordry!
> Is there a brain in the crowd that can do JudySpeak so that pore me can
> apprehend the teachings of my Betters?
>
> woe is she, Judy
>
> 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > Hal, well this is an idea that I came across last fall in a review class
> on
> > literary theory, and I at least find/found it compelling. The idea is
> not
> > straightofrwardly that everything one reads is either from a formalist,
> > structuralist, feminist, marxist &c. point of view, but that all
> > non-literary text is read with the right 'way' in mind -- which is what
> > literature lacks, so the set of aesthetic, moral and philosophical
> > standards
> > each reader of literature works from has developed them individually.
> thus
> > even someone without knowledge of formal theories is not theory-free in
> the
> > sense that there would be some pure, tabula-rasa-ish way of viewing
> > literature, because that's not possible I'd say. as social beings we
> each
> > involve ourselves with the outside world with *some* tools, even if we
> are
> > unaware of them, and though having the ability to see critically, norms
> > (social as well as theoretical) are also what guide us.
> >
> > here's a snippet from how K.M. Newton puts it in <<Twentieth Century
> > LIterary Theory>> (1997):
> >
> > With virtually all forms of non-literary discourse certain norms and
> > > constraints must govern how they are read if such discourses are to
> serve
> > > the interests and purposes that direct our reading. Thus though
> > theoretical
> > > questions may be raised in relation to such discourses, theory must
> take
> > > second place to these interests and purposes. This is the case whether
> > one
> > > is reading a cooking recipe, a newspaper article, a work of history or
> > > philosophy, or a scientific paper. But with literary discourse, there
> are
> > no
> > > practical or logical necessities external to the discourse that
> determine
> > > how it must be read. Theory is therefore* *always implied in reading
> > > literary discourse, since whatever norms and constraints that govern
> how
> > > literary texts are read cannot be seen as an integral part of the
> > discourse
> > > itself but are *chosen, consciously or unconsciously*, from among the
> > > various possibilities by the reader. [my italics]
> > >
> > >
> > I welcome opinions on this, though as I have an exam coming up on this
> > topic
> > I'll try not to muddle myself with critical second-guessing until after
> I
> > pass it. ;)
> > (I kid, but I do find that university studies are more prescriptivist
> than
> > really descriptivist, in practice.)
> >
> > KS
> >
> > 2009/5/11 Halvard Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > What do you mean when you say "no writing can be viewed
> > > without theory"? I'd say that any writing can be viewed
> > > without theory.
> > >
> > > Hal
> > >
> > > "My experience is what I agree to attend to."
> > > --William James
> > >
> > > Halvard Johnson
> > > ================
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > http://sites.google.com/site/halvardjohnson/Home
> > > http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
> > > http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
> > > http://www.hamiltonstone.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > also, not to harp too much on the subject, but the key words in my
> > > original
> > > > post were "on its own". it's true that no writing can be viewed
> without
> > > > theory, but ultrapostmodernist poetry seems to require the tinted
> > glasses
> > > > of
> > > > a theory that, to me, feels strained & alien. even if it makes me a
> > pleb,
> > > > and even though I know views are wont to shift around, at the moment
> > I'd
> > > > rather produce something good within a norm than produce something
> bad
> > > > outside of one.
> > > >
> > > > KS
> > > >
> > > > 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >
> > > > > I will say I appreciate the idea in provoking sneers at "a poetry
> > field
> > > > > crowded by would-be sincerists unwilling to own up to their poems’
> > > > > self-aggrandizing, sentimental, bloviating, or sexist tendencies".
> > then
> > > > > again I see nothing wrong with aggrandizement or sentimentality if
> it
> > > > isn't
> > > > > done vacuously, or naïvely. on my own part I can't do much in the
> way
> > > of
> > > > > rooting out such in my own writing, being a called-out naif
> myself. I
> > > do
> > > > > what I can with my pupating awareness and ability.
> > > > >
> > > > > KS
> > > > >
> > > > > 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >
> > > > > I was curt, but I stand by the opinion, which comes from an albeit
> > > > >> non-postmodern stance. I know of flarf poetry, and one quote I
> found
> > > > from
> > > > >> Joshua Corey sums up what preconceptions I have of it: "I admire
> the
> > > > >> subversive energy of the project, the daring of setting out to
> write
> > > > >> deliberately bad poetry so as to put our received ideas of "the
> > > poetic"
> > > > into
> > > > >> question."
> > > > >> that's all well & good, but it's still bad poetry to me. I'd
> rather
> > > read
> > > > >> GOOD poetry that questions our received ideas of 'the poetic'.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> KS
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2009/5/10 Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I detect no evidence you understand it, or "flarf" at all. To
> > elicit
> > > > the
> > > > >>> comment "bad
> > > > >>> poem" from a naif signals success in that range.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Barry Alpert
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:28:26 +0300, kasper salonen <
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> >if nothing else, it's a bad poem on its own.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >2009/5/6 Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >> THOUGHTMESH
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> Video shocked selfless publishing.
> > > > >>> >> Innovation featured fact editors edited.
> > > > >>> >> Ambition benefitted conceptual shocked video.
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> Barry Alpert / Silver Spring, MD US / 5-6-09 (8:16 AM)
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> Unconsciously referencing traditional forms with its 14
> words, 3
> > > > >>> lines, &
> > > > >>> >> the "rhyme" of its
> > > > >>> >> conclusion with its opening. Also an unexpected variant on
> my
> > > > >>> >> severely-edited workings
> > > > >>> >> with the strategies of "flarf".
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|