Hi All - I am totally lost on this thread. & the "Etc" here as taken the upper hand. Is it about meter, is about reading or is it about Bruce Andrews interview? Of course,I just responded to a Bruce Andrews public reading experience - which I found difficult (obviously) and I did not give the interview the time of day for which I apologize. I know the interviewer -and I find him a good guy- and I should have read it, and maybe will do. So my bigotry might have gotten the upper hand, and maybe still does. Tho I do not think my response to that particular reading will ever alter, no way.
But maybe somebody here can clarify the thread?
Stephen V
http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
--- On Sun, 4/4/10, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Bruce Andrews interview at The Argotist Online
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 10:40 AM
Does a(ny) reader's response have to be 'exegetical'?
Ive often felt that what I want is a non exegetical response....
Not only, but....
Doug
On 3-Apr-10, at 12:05 PM, Jeffrey Side wrote:
> I see your point, that you have to interest yourself when you write. I agree, but I want the reader to have a unique exegetical experience also. I want a poem to produce a simultaneous performance of itself in the reader, so that there is overload and surplus of potential meanings.
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 secret
which got lost neither hides
nor reveals itself, it shows forth
tokens.
Charles Olson
|