Doug wrote: >But then, when I had students, the best of them did have bite,
& fought to maintain their 'purity' or whatever they called it. I sometimes
wanted to wring their necks, but also only wanted them to think more deeply
into what they wrote so they could make it better, & better able to reach
whatever audience they sought. (We do seek 'an' audience, dont we? or else
why write?)<
I don't know but I wonder if one of the things that is happening in some
'Western' societies is that, because of the way the role of literacy is
changing, poets are looking for extended peer-groups, approval networks,
rather than 'audiences' in the wider sense, so that the desired target is
conformity to, and approval from, the language-identity of groupings. It
certainly seems to me poetry reviews in some places work like that: the
review confirms the writer as one of an 'us', an 'us' which is rather hard
to define but everywhere implicit. The performance poetry circuit seems
to have unwritten criterion like that too, but without the apparently formal
reviews.
2009/12/28 Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]>
> Well, at the beginning, there are a lot of passive constructions, etc,
> which suggests that he doesnt want to be as tough as he seems to 'want' to
> be.
>
> There is much to argue with. Of course, I'd rather review a book I like, so
> if I can I pick one, not as a 'puff piece,' but because it's fun to share
> something one loves. Some of us are more eclectic than others in our tastes.
> those who stick to a fairly narrow field will tell those of us who dont that
> we are 'soft,' & that may be true. But if we react strongly to a poem, or
> book, whether or not it's quite 'our thing' is that really all that bad? I
> like a lot of different kinds of music too.
>
> Teachers who want their students to repeat what they do are cheating both
> the students and themselves. That's sad. That's maybe human. One tries to
> avoid that mistake (or I did; how successfully I just dont know).
>
> But then, when I had students, the best of them did have bite, & fought to
> maintain their 'purity' or whatever they called it. I sometimes wanted to
> wring their necks, but also only wanted them to think more deeply into what
> they wrote so they could make it better, & better able to reach whatever
> audience they sought. (We do seek 'an' audience, dont we? or else why
> write?)
>
> Doug
>
> On 28-Dec-09, at 9:33 AM, David Bircumshaw wrote:
>
> Yes, Jeffrey, the point stands well. Fieled's piece is also very
>> ill-written
>> ('I would like to opine that..' etc) - there you are, a 'bad
>> review' comment.
>>
>> 2009/12/28 Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> 'On the Necessity of Bad Reviews' by Adam Fieled:
>>> http://www.argotistonline.co.uk/Fieled%20essay.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Bircumshaw
>> "A window./Big enough to hold screams/
>> You say are poems" - DMeltzer
>> Website and A Chide's Alphabet
>> http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
>> The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
>>
>>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
> Latest books:
> Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> Wednesdays'
>
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
>
> The artist has no right to waste
>
> the time of the listener.
>
> Eric Alfred Leslie Satie
>
--
David Bircumshaw
"A window./Big enough to hold screams/
You say are poems" - DMeltzer
Website and A Chide's Alphabet
http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
|