Precisely, Michael. Neither thought nor social change require an exclusionary rhetoric.
-----Original Message-----
>From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Oct 22, 2015 12:17 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Jeremy asks Keston a question
>
>Not at all, Jamie, it's a reasonable and well-expressed question.
>
>Contrary to stereotype, many innovative poets have no interest in theory. Alice Notley, e.g. And of those who are interested and use it in their work, well that can mean a tremendous variety of different things. Adrian Clarke and Simon Jarvis are not really very similar poets. After all, there's a lot of theory out there.
>
>The strongest argument for theory (speaking as a non-theoretician) that I've seen has nothing to do with poetry. Benjamin Noys put it in two sentences: Do you need theory? Not if you're happy with things the way they are. He was claiming, I think, that theory was necessary to probing below the conceptions that constitute the political cultural social world as it now is. I feel the force of that. At the same time, I know a lot of us are not happy with the way things are yet feel no particular need to reach for Hegel in order to campaign against injustice or environmental damage.
|