 |
 |
By the way, Luke, I’m not even vaguely referring to any of your own poems with that last remark, only to your preceding cogitations about the tensions between these various modes. Also I don’t discount the possibility that the oddest obsessions, academic or other, might generate poems... Jamie > On 2 May 2018, at 14:20, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Then I unnecessarily explained myself because you said you didn’t! I’m suggesting that moving these counters around the board might be an academic pastime but I can’t see the activity as generating poems of any interest. Just my opinion. > Jamie > > >> On 2 May 2018, at 14:01, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I know what you meant. They're not abstract entities, that's all I meant. >> >> Luke >> >>> On 2 May 2018 at 13:59, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> I mean the ‘modes’ that you parenthesised in that sentence - conceptual, popular, avant. >>> Jamie >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On 2 May 2018, at 13:57, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Abstract terms =/= entities, not sure what you mean by that. I mean, whatever though. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Luke >>>> >>>>> On 2 May 2018 at 13:55, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> Or conversely, irrespective of the ‘tensions between modes (conceptual, popular, avant) things (i.e. poetry) will still happen and develop’. >>>>> I can’t really believe that these abstract entities are in the least bit necessary for generating poems. >>>>> Jamie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On 2 May 2018, at 02:01, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I mean 'the future of poetry' doesn't have to be a thing, as long as there are still tensions between modes (conceptual, popular, avant) things will still happen and develop, etc.. It's the soggy undifferentiated mess that would disappoint. >>>>> > >>>>> > Luke >>>> >>