At 17/04/98 17:39:52, cris cheek <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
# Hi Roger, Hi Jon,
# How does reading irony as text appears on screen in an e-mail message
# differ from reading irony from text appearing on a page, in a magazine
# in a book?
To know irony, I have to know the "to whom" I'm talking to. There are two
strategies: I trust everything, until told o'wise (my approach) or trust
nothing (until told o'wise).
On the other hand, I can recognise anachronistic elements (wearing
sun-glasses to read email, then again maybe you do...?)
# You're not the first by far who's expressed this, that's why i asked.
# curious to understand how it happens, what the diff is.
# Is it not clear a signla enough, that terms are at least contestable, if
# not being ironised, when they appear in 'quotation' marks? Doesn't that
# least create a suspening pause?
Ah Quotation marks == Irony. New one on me.
# As to 'unequivocally believing what one reads', how do you 'read' news?
# It's not surely a question of disbelieveing everything from this source,
# but having a healthy sense that everything constructed through language
# reveals bias, that terms (such as truth / beauty / pure / musical /
# narrative / performance / natural / soulful / and so on) can become
# contestable and if left ill-defined carry unwieldy cutural baggae that
# needs unpacking before discussion can proceed. I take 'feelings' to be
# such term, as Ric suggests, receivers will differ. Feeling full, after a
# hearty lunch suggests that your repository for feelings is located in
# physical sensation - I'm surely wrong, but I ask the question again.
# are these feelings that are being untended for in these particular
# readings? Is this received opinions? Are we into tawdry territory of the
Was I being ironic? I think I was. I'm looking for something that connects
to me, to make me feel something.
As I said before, I've never read Prynne, but I intend to. I will look for
something that connects, that makes me feel something. If I can understand
the language, repects and know some of the cultural terms, than will I not
find something if it's there?
I do see the light behind the receiver, though, and agree that these can be
culturally defined up to a point. However. Blaming the reader for not being
"emotionally tuned" to your writing is a cop-out of giant-sized
proportions. Poet:"Didn't like my stuff? Maybe you weren't "tuned in" to
it. Not my problem." But what if I, as reader, have "tuned-in" to the work
and still find nothing there? Which of these statements are provable?
In a culturally neutral arena, who has the greater responsibility (or need)
to reach the other...the poet or the reader. These days, I might say it's
# 'individual' - as in ideas lumped onto Cage and MacLow, for example,
# aleatoric procedures did away with 'individuality'. 'Cause I'd contest
# they did, they revealed their individuality through the conspicuous
# that they made about territory they engaged with, and through processes
# material transformation they applied.
Wow...slow down there. Major jargon alert. I have no idea what you're on
about. And do I care....
Go away. Now.
# love and love