I take your point, Stephen, &, certainly, Dave's, but still. (Although
I would be much more sympathetic to an old prof of mine's suggestion
that scholars should apply for funding for time off in order NOT to
write another book on some subject.
But, on one level, isnt all youre asking for a chance at careful
choice, to pick only a few books & take the (quiet) time to really get
into them. I mean we have had a week of the Edmonton Poetry festival,
& I am feeling rather poetry-ed out right now, but some of the events
have been good. And last night's presentation of various forms of
poetry interacting with the visual, especially the signed poems of a
deaf woman, Jolanta Lapiak, were a beautiful dance of phrasings I (&
mst of the audience) couldnt understand yet on some level definitely
Still, I have heard quite a bit I am not going to read on the page, &
some I have & will.
I just got copies of Rae Armantrout's new book, & Barbara Guest's
Collected, not to mention some new Canadian ones, & I am looking
forward to them all. Yet, still, I am making choices & dont intend to
read everything. The 'problem,' as always, has to do with taste I
guess youd call it; what will give my spirit a rise might not do
anything for yours. So each of us might choose to read only two books
this year, yet not have a single book shared by even two of us....
(Of course, each of us would know that all the others were wrong . . .).
On 23-Apr-10, at 11:49 AM, Stephen Vincent wrote:
> I read recently that many are suffering from what is now called,
> "information disease"- that is many live in a information swamped
> state of paralysis, including, I assume, what can be a swamp of
> poetry publications, photographs et al. I confess. I think I suffer
> from that disease. I can spend hours looking closely at trees and
> birds - delightful in itself, but a relief from the constantly
> looming market bull dozer (ah, a pun!) of Art. Personally I also
> like the solace of a well made book - one that creates a space
> around a small gathering of poems in which I can really concentrate
> on the there of there, and take its slowly or, however, as I want.
> (Something that is much more ephemeral on a monitor) This is not to
> reject being once in my twenties and gobbling up everything in
> sight, poetry et al. That was necessary 'food' for flesh and bone.
> But I now I even get fed up with 'critical pointers' - online review
> mags with 50 etc. reviews. Oy & where to
> So I kind of agree with the root disturbance behind David's proposal
> - as in 'give us a break'.
> Then, again, frankly, I think there has always been a load of
> particularly young work that comes, and shortly disappears from
> public sight. Even when I remember (if that) of the work that I have
> quickly disposed without even 'going public.' As natural, I suspect,
> to the creative process as waves that rise with some power then
> crash and wash quite flatly back down the beach.
[log in to unmask]
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
I was immediately set upon by two or three
critics, who hurled sophistries and
maledictions at me that were astonishing
in their dimness.
Jorge Luis Borges