"and just how does that sea sound, pounding there around your head?"
arethusa
uses yellow hands to find me.
darkness in the face of this reality
haunts the shadows of trees
in the smell of last night's smoke.
i know it's there, but i don't fear it
yet
afternoon shadows become bold
reaching with dirty-nailed fingers
towards my prickled flesh
this is not fear,
i soothe myself,
this is a day lived
after living through the night which
comes
grinning without teeth
holding out scabbed arms
to catch me
when i fall over
the remains of the broken day.
TomW
with sex and violins.
Dr. Naomi Klapper
By way of inroduction here is a poem from my book LOVERS
SILVER DEMONS
Soon the ice will melt
Your lips will swell signora
Soon the sun will dry the tears
You cry for me signora
Fly away with me silver demon
Horse thieves on the run
I bow to you signora
Choose well
Soon the ice will melt
Your lips will swell signora
Soon the sun will dry the tears
You cry for me signora
I will carry with me
Swollen lips swollen womb
Children splashing in the rain
You will forget the golden heart signora
Soon the ice will melt
Your lips will swell signora
Soon the sun will dry the tears
You cry for me signora
Copyright Dr. Naomi Klapper 1999
Library of Congress Catalog Number Txu 920-122
Peace
Nomi
www.thegcompany.com
JAS Carter
Naomi Klapper" <nomi...@worldnet.att.net> warbled oh so charmingly:
>You cry for me signora
Reminding me inexorably of that damned Andrew Lloyd Webber song.
Let me state for the record that I hate Andrew Lloyd Webber, dammit.
"I kept my promissssssse, don't keep your distance!"
Julie Carter
--
http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
arethusa
wrote:
>This is nice, but it you could improve it by replace shadows and trees
>with sex and violins.
i would be offended by this if you had proved yourself capable of
putting even one simple sentence together in a way that makes
sense. since you're not, i'll just assume you're an ass and overlook
your lame attempt at humor at my expense.
denise
TomW
arethusa wrote:
> deniseI
You're right of course. I put the bare ass in embarrassment. But in
this case, it's a valid criticism:
"uses yellow hands to find me.
violins in the face of this reality
haunt the sex in the smell
of last night's smoke.
i know it's there, but i do not fear"
Your humble servant,
Tom
BigFatGuy
<39eb5f80....@news.supernews.com>:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:44:25 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments "Dr.
>Naomi Klapper" <nomi...@worldnet.att.net> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
>>You cry for me signora
>
>Reminding me inexorably of that damned Andrew Lloyd Webber song.
>
>Let me state for the record that I hate Andrew Lloyd Webber, dammit.
>
>"I kept my promissssssse, don't keep your distance!"
Carol Bayer Singer wrote the words, Burt Bacharach just wrote the music.
arethusa
wrote:
hrmph. you're right, damn you.
denise
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8s0cvm$43v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <ub16uss7praep5q2n...@4ax.com>,
> arethusa <aret...@microxl.com> wrote:
> > morning
> >
> > uses yellow hands to find me.
>
>
> > darkness in the face of this reality
>
> No. This is cliche.
>
> > haunts the shadows of trees
>
> (which to this reader, you have not delivered yet), of a comparison
> of smoke to shadows. Lose the rest of it.
>
> I would completely revise from here:
>
> > i know it's there, but i don't fear it
>
> Don't fear what? I think you mean darkness, but why does the speaker
> fear _that_? And what does it have to do with your title?
>
> > yet
> >
> > afternoon shadows become bold
> > reaching with dirty-nailed fingers
> > towards my prickled flesh
> > this is not fear,
> > i soothe myself,
> > this is a day lived
> > after living through the night which
> >
> > comes
> >
> > grinning without teeth
> > holding out scabbed arms
> > to catch me
> > when i fall over
>
> > the remains of the broken day.
>
> to that book or film?
>
> I have a feeling your piece is meant to be suspenseful, but thus far it
> lacks suspense.
>
But that's what is suspenseful: waiting for any sign of suspense. It's like
waiting for Godot, only with less humor to cut the sugar with.
dmh
Redclay 6
waiting for Godot, only with less humor to cut the sugar with.
dmh>>
guh.
becket onna barstool, waitin fer his blind date.
TomW
arethusa wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:30:57 -0500, TomW <to...@jaynicholson.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >arethusa wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:41:22 -0500, TomW <to...@jaynicholson.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >You're right of course. I put the bare ass in embarrassment. But in
> >this case, it's a valid criticism:
> >
> >"uses yellow hands to find me.
> >violins in the face of this reality
> >haunt the sex in the smell
> >of last night's smoke.
> >i know it's there, but i do not fear"
> >
> >Your humble servant,
> >Tom
>
> hrmph. you're right, damn you.
>
> denise
I'm not that right, I really should have explained myself a bit more.
Shadows and trees are big totem words, and such common images are
dangerous ammunition when used in combination with pathetic fallacy.
"Shadows become bold" bothered me more than most lines here. A good work
around is trading uncommon words for the images you want to use, often
with interesting and unsuspected results. Dale is a master of this
tactic, watch Dale.
Tom
Robert Barcus
"arethusa" <aret...@microxl.com> wrote in message
news:ub16uss7praep5q2n...@4ax.com...
> morning
>
> uses yellow hands to find me.
> haunts the shadows of trees
>
> yet
>
> afternoon shadows become bold
> reaching with dirty-nailed fingers
> towards my prickled flesh
> this is not fear,
> i soothe myself,
> this is a day lived
> after living through the night which
>
> comes
>
> grinning without teeth
> holding out scabbed arms
> to catch me
> when i fall over
> the remains of the broken day.
very very very good Denise
RB
Dale Houstman
> In article <39e3dec9$0$28258$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8s0cvm$43v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > far it lacks suspense.
>
> > It's like waiting for Godot, only with less humor to cut the sugar
> > with.
>
> difficult project: to write an eerie or suspenseful poem.
> When well done, they are my favorite kind by far.
> I remember one of yours about a vegetal man. It is as creepy and
> beautifully weird as "Christabel" promised to be, had Coleridge
> finished it.
> Can you give me some advice on how to go about writing in this genre?
> Thanks.
>
Really? I would be lying if I said I knew precisely how. My main "technique"
(as I've explained poorly many times) is to utilize another text I find
interesting for whatever personal reason: often this can be just for its
size and margins, but I particularly am taken by texts full of intriguing
nouns and adjectives. Then one quickly scans it (changing pages when one
feels it is used up in any way) and lets some internal process pick and
choose. But that internal process: the manner in which I choose is difficult
to describe and probably impossible to teach in any fashion. It strikes me
as a willingness combined with some informed passions. And I do know that -
most of all - I am not at all interested - at the time - in writing a poem,
but in experiencing some marvelous connection with the words that places
them beyond immediate capture. That this is not a real process that can be
taught is maybe obvious? If I remember correctly this "vegetal man" poem
you're speaking of was a sort of leafy rape/stalking story. In that case I
used a horticulture text and my general tendency toward "noir" atmospherics.
And then there's the rewriting, which is - in most ways - the most human
portion of the process. In that I try to "stitch" what disparate portions
there are together with guiding metaphors, aiming for an integrity without
overtness. It's more a sensation than a technique I think: a set of "tones"
that I can quite plainly feel. I try to have nothing to "say." I am not a
personalist by any intent (Rimbaud called that subjective poetry, and he
rather disdained it), but a sort of floating textual intent.
Or something like that. If you want more specific info, write to me
privately with specific questions. But I am very unsure of my ability to
help.
dmh
gga...@excite.com
>>
>> very very very good Denise
>>
>> RB
>>
>improvement (I don't know if that is the case, as this is all I've
>read of hers), but it is not good. It seems unfair to tell her that it
>is.
>
>cythera.
My god, barcus lives.
He tells her that it's good because he has no clue what good is.
gg
ni...@my-deja.com
jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter) wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:44:25 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments "Dr.
> Naomi Klapper" <nomi...@worldnet.att.net> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
> >You cry for me signora
>
> Reminding me inexorably of that damned Andrew Lloyd Webber song.
>
> Let me state for the record that I hate Andrew Lloyd Webber, dammit.
His new show (co-written by Ben Elton) has forced him onto our
televisions with adverts in which he declares 'It's written from the
heart'.
Not a clue.
nic.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> In article <39e4f77f$0$28247$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
> > That this is not a real process that can be taught is maybe obvious?
>
> has been purely for fun.
Hey, nothing wrong with that. I get the impression writers, or at least
unusual poets, must just think different things are fun than other
people. It's extremely hard to learn things one doesn't enjoy, but when
you're having fun it doesn't matter if you don't get results right away,
so there's less disappointment. Maybe that doesn't need to be said
either. And I'm not saying poets are born, but I definitely don't think
all people have an equal capacity for learning it (I have too hard a
time reading great poets to think that).
> And I have initially had the sense of
> responding to the individual I just read (lately, Eluard and
> Lautreamont): as if each of their personalities or the scenes or
> feelings they describe were so vivid in that moment that I wished to
> tell them something, or add onto their work.
I think that's pretty normal (for what that's worth). I for one have
yet to have heard of either of them, not ashamed to say. So you're
definitely responding to writers who get less letters than Santa Neruda,
for what THAT's worth.
> It's interesting to me how many possible and quite different pieces of
> writing begin to emerge as I work on certain rewrites.
I get that too, I find it discouraging. I want them all to be realized,
but I don't want to have a dozen poems that start the same, so I usually
write really short things. Good luck.
I hope I don't sound condescending; unlike most people I know I'm not an
expert. I've asked Dale the same things more times than I remember.
One thing he said once (at the risk of glamorizing his lifestyle) was
that, though the moment of creation may not be "difficult", the time
spent immersing oneself in the trappings of poetry make the creating
flow that much easier; you don't have to think about it as hard. It
didn't sound as dumb when he said it. He used the phrase "informed
intuition". I guess you had to be there. He will be missed.
-chuckk
Jim Sheard
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:44:25 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments "Dr.
>Naomi Klapper" <nomi...@worldnet.att.net> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
>>You cry for me signora
>
>Reminding me inexorably of that damned Andrew Lloyd Webber song.
>
>Let me state for the record that I hate Andrew Lloyd Webber, dammit.
>
>"I kept my promissssssse, don't keep your distance!"
It triggered Abba's 'Fernando' for me. Is that worse?
Jim
still, it was a 'gift', so we shouldn't examine the teeth
--
10 written under the influence of aapc
http://www.jsheard.co.uk/poetry/aapc.htm
Dale Houstman
"Chuckk Hubbard" <badger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39E5B309...@hotmail.com...
>
> I hope I don't sound condescending; unlike most people I know I'm not an
> expert. I've asked Dale the same things more times than I remember.
> One thing he said once (at the risk of glamorizing his lifestyle) was
> that, though the moment of creation may not be "difficult", the time
> spent immersing oneself in the trappings of poetry make the creating
> flow that much easier; you don't have to think about it as hard. It
> didn't sound as dumb when he said it. He used the phrase "informed
> intuition". I guess you had to be there. He will be missed.
>
>
But I wish the landlord would stop asking me for rent. It seems unfair.
I think the phrase I used was "infirmary tuition." Right now I don't know
what it means, but I'm sure it's deep as a wading pool and twice as cool.
dmh
JAS Carter
<cyt...@my-deja.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>Part of the problem with reading "great poets" is that somebody else
>has decided they're great. As a woman, I don't find book upon book
>by white men (or men, period), to be terribly expressive of my
>experience or desire.
I don't think I've ever noticed a difference in my relating to men's
poetry versus women's. I get confused just thinking about it.
Men have the same desires I have. They have the same experiences.
The areas we differ are so small they are negligible.
eddie_...@my-deja.com
> When I do discover poets that I want to read (most recently,
> Gisele Prassinos and Unica Zurn, both surrealist), they not only
> are not in my public library, but I can't even find them on the web,
fyi I believe Unica Zurn has a book coming out very soon from Exact
Change.
Eddie (man)
Inspired by your statement about men's poetry I am from here on out
reading only my poetry as only my poetry speaks to me about my
experience.
Robert Barcus
> In article <AY5F5.34529$XV.18...@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> >
> > RB
> >
> I can't imagine why you are telling her this. It may be a big
> improvement (I don't know if that is the case, as this is all I've
> read of hers), but it is not good. It seems unfair to tell her that it
> is.
>
> cythera.
I have my opinion and that I expect is very OK with the group.
If you read Denise when she first posted here and compare that to this, I
think you too may say..."very good".
If not...then you have your opinion. And that is OK with me.
RB
Robert Barcus
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message news:39e6414c.310397330@news...
Hello Gary...I live because perhaps I have no clue what living is????
RB
>
Dale Houstman
"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39e71c85....@news.supernews.com...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:04:51 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments cythera
> <cyt...@my-deja.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
> >Part of the problem with reading "great poets" is that somebody else
> >has decided they're great. As a woman, I don't find book upon book
> >by white men (or men, period), to be terribly expressive of my
> >experience or desire.
>
> I don't think I've ever noticed a difference in my relating to men's
> poetry versus women's. I get confused just thinking about it.
>
> Men have the same desires I have. They have the same experiences.
> The areas we differ are so small they are negligible.
>
"feminine"/"masculine" feelings strikes me as just so much bullshit, and
doesn't take into the equation the fact that men and women are essentially
the same in every important regard. Sappho wrote of love, so did a thousand
other poets male and female. Emily Dickinson writes of ephemeral feelings of
mystical connection, and so does Blake. Most of what passes for this
separation seems to be the political "flesh curtain" that has gone up since
the 70s, and - frankly - it bores me to tears.
dmh
Redclay 6
"feminine"/"masculine" feelings strikes me as just so much bullshit, and
doesn't take into the equation the fact that men and women are essentially
the same in every important regard. Sappho wrote of love, so did a thousand
other poets male and female. Emily Dickinson writes of ephemeral feelings of
mystical connection, and so does Blake. Most of what passes for this
separation seems to be the political "flesh curtain" that has gone up since
the 70s, and - frankly - it bores me to tears.>>
it ain a wall, so muchas a road.
them roosters are eyein the traffic,
an decidin to stay with test-testtesterone.
ceptions to the ruled?
im not sayin they ain some crossin gainst the lite.
but most are quite content to count cars.
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> "Chuckk Hubbard" <badger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39E5B309...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > I hope I don't sound condescending; unlike most people I know I'm not an
> > expert. I've asked Dale the same things more times than I remember.
> > One thing he said once (at the risk of glamorizing his lifestyle) was
> > that, though the moment of creation may not be "difficult", the time
> > spent immersing oneself in the trappings of poetry make the creating
> > flow that much easier; you don't have to think about it as hard. It
> > didn't sound as dumb when he said it. He used the phrase "informed
> > intuition". I guess you had to be there. He will be missed.
> >
> >
> Am I gone? Crike! That explains why my pants seem too large all of a sudden.
> But I wish the landlord would stop asking me for rent. It seems unfair.
Well you didn't hear it from me, but the word is that Josh has been
writing your posts since you passed on. And if you look closely- I was
able to verify this myself- one or more of the pictures in your own
Alice seem to contain the word "DALE?" hidden in them. Some might take
this to mean someone was trying to talk to you while you drew them, but
it's still awfully convincing. There really are several blatant hints
on the magnetic fields website, to the discerning eye.
>
> I think the phrase I used was "infirmary tuition." Right now I don't know
> what it means, but I'm sure it's deep as a wading pool and twice as cool.
Come to think of it, I believe it was a reference to "Swiss
infantrymen", something about poetry being lucrative (and full of
holes). It all makes so much sense.
-chuckk
>
> dmh
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> I don't think I've ever noticed a difference in my relating to men's
> poetry versus women's. I get confused just thinking about it.
>
> Men have the same desires I have. They have the same experiences.
> The areas we differ are so small they are negligible.
I have doubts that swing both ways; the obvious demographics of pop
music catch me, for one. You got your Joe Satriani's, and you got your
Indigo Girls's, and of course not just the musicians, but their fans.
But on the other hand there's Don Henley's and... well I don't know any
female Satriani's (not that I'm complaining). On second thought, using
pop music to try to make a point is like using a balloon to drink
coffee.
I'm not nearly as certain as you are. I thank media for the sick
feeling I have in my stomach trying to discuss it.
-chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> In article <39E5B309...@hotmail.com>,
> chu...@paonline.com wrote:
> > Maybe that doesn't need to be said either. And I'm not saying poets
> > are born, but I definitely don't think all people have an equal
> > capacity for learning it (I have too hard a time reading great poets
> > to think that).
>
> has decided they're great.
Another thing I've discussed at length. Over the last year I waded into
Kant's Critique of Judgement, perhaps premature, but I've enjoyed it; he
addresses greatness, but he's talking about aesthetics, not poetry (so
it's not real specific), and of course he didn't have much personal
interest in art anyway. Somehow the question is less interesting than
it used to be; I didn't think that could ever happen, but I'm downright
less inquisitive than I was a year and a half ago. Still have a talent
for forgetting what I was talking about, though.
> As a woman, I don't find book upon book
> by white men (or men, period), to be terribly expressive of my
> experience or desire.
Me neither. Or if I do, I don't like the form. I did start to adore
some writers of the Squirmin' Germans school- my label- for a while, but
few were poets, and I wouldn't know German even if they were.
> And a lot of contemporary women's poetry
> seems so boring to me: Adrienne Rich comes to mind. I don't
> particularly care...
I can't read her name without a glass of water.
>
> When I do discover poets that I want to read (most recently,
> Gisele Prassinos and Unica Zurn, both surrealist), they not only
> are not in my public library, but I can't even find them on the web,
Then I don't feel bad for not knowing them. Jules Laforgue is hard to
find, I can only find overwrought (I'm guessing) translations.
> though there are three of Prassinos' works at
>
> http://www.kalin.lm.com/author.html
checkin it out.
>
> I think that part of the process of discovering how you want to write
> is in discovering what you want to read; and when you can't find it,
> simply trying to create that yourself.
That sounds like my observations must have- painfully obvious. I don't
know; I usually try to avoid directly imitating those I like, but I can
learn from them. Why anyone should care what I do is beside the point.
> > I think that's pretty normal (for what that's worth). I for one have
> > yet to have heard of either of them, not ashamed to say. So you're
> > definitely responding to writers who get less letters than Santa
> > Neruda, for what THAT's worth.
>
> One by Paul Eluard.
> http://homepages.go.com/~lashurdes/dsELUARD.html
etc,
checkin it all out when I'm done with the other.
> > He will be missed.
> ?
I found myself repeatedly referring to him in the past tense and third
person, and it sounded like I was commemorating him, the poor chap; but
it serves well, because a "Dale is dead" rumor is just what this
newsgroup needs to stir things up.
-chuckk
Dale Houstman
BTW: look for clues to my death in my poems. There should be plenty!
dmh
Dale Houstman
> In article <39e67123$0$28252$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
> > "JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:39e71c85....@news.supernews.com...
> > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:04:51 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments
> > > cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
> > >
> > > >upon book by white men (or men, period), to be terribly
> > > >expressive of my experience or desire.
> > >
> > > men's poetry versus women's. I get confused just thinking about
> > > it.
>
> > > Men have the same desires I have. They have the same experiences.
> > > The areas we differ are so small they are negligible.
> > >
> > "feminine"/"masculine" feelings strikes me as just so much bullshit,
> > and doesn't take into the equation the fact that men and women are
> > essentially the same in every important regard.
>
> women often do approach the expression of them quite differently.
> And I can't, for instance, claim that I have had the same experiences
> as Ernest Hemingway did or feel at all driven to approach my life in
> such a manner.
But have you ever had the same experiences as Sappho or Gisele for that
matter? At any rate, I thought one of the reasons we read is to experience
the other, or at least other lives and sensibilities. I mean, how much in
common with Aristotle could I possibly have, and yet I love reading his
weird logics. I must say that I don't have much in common with Hemingway
either, but he composes a damn fine sentence. That's all it takes finally.
>There is no way I have had the same experiences as a
> man when it comes to being a husband or father, or having been in
> combat, Vietnam for instance.
> And I'm not saying I identify with "women's poetry", whatever that
> is... and I say in part "whatever that is" because women poets through
> the ages have been almost entirely absent from the books we read. So
> there is scant legacy in that regard: Sappho, Emily, Elizabeth Barrett
> Browning, et.al; and the more recent ones.
The Sappho incident is entirely an accident of a fire: in Alexandria all of
her scrolls were supposed to have been stored. She was very popular, and is
mentioned in many male's writings of the time as an exemplar. Emily I've
been reading and reading about all my life. Her "mythology" (the frail and
shy recluse, the bitter mystic, etc.) are a part of every educated
consciousness I would think (unless education has slipped further than it
has in my time: we certainly read and discussed her). They made a damn movie
about Browning! And - in her time - once her "Songs From the Portugese" came
out, she became more popular than her husband. There probably isn't a person
alive (except in some fading Browning Club) that can quote even part of a
Robert Browning poem by heart, but almost everyone knows "How do I love you?
/ Let me count the ways." And so on...
>
> > Sappho wrote of love, so did a thousand other poets male and female.
>
> I think we probably all write of love, don't you? But how a body of
> women's poetry (or prose, or music, or art), might be similar or
> different from that of men is (it seems to me) impossible to say.
> There is not a similar history. Anyway, women write in what is
> essentially, at least for now, a white man's world.
But - as I said - don't we read in part to experience these others? It seems
very limiting to me to only read what expresses yourself. This precludes
most (maybe all) literature. In a very real way we become what we read; the
spell of the text changes us, and eventually becomes our context.
>
> > Emily Dickinson writes of ephemeral feelings of mystical connection,
> > and so does Blake. Most of what passes for this separation seems to
> > be the political "flesh curtain" that has gone up since the 70s, and
> > - frankly - it bores me to tears.
>
> Politically I find it interesting. Did you see Nightline two nights
> ago -- another of the Jerusalem Town Hall meetings that ABC conducts
> every few years? Both the Israeli and the Palestinian female
> politician who spoke were wonderful, I thought. But as for the
> political "flesh curtain" in the West [and how that translates into
> poetry]: I agree; it is (very) boring. I think that's a result of the
> "women's movement" being so young. Whatever a "woman's poetry" is is
> also very young.
As a massive publishing concern and PR campaign maybe, but historically no.
There are startling examples throughout history: the Japanese have some
absolutely stunning female writers, who often show a greater grasp of
contemporary mores and day-to-day existence than male writers. But I enjoy
them both. I can find no reason not to. And yet the lives of these women and
these women are both so alien to me (and you) that one cannot believe it at
first. Slowly one realizes that they are only speaking of love and hunger
and pride and fear and anger and a love of nature. It is their sensibilties
(stripped of their technology or lack of) that still ring true today, male
or female.
dmg
Dale Houstman
"Redclay 6" <redc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001010235601...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> But that's what is suspenseful: waiting for any sign of suspense. It's
like
> waiting for Godot, only with less humor to cut the sugar with.
>
>
> guh.
>
> becket onna barstool, waitin fer his blind date.
I used to tell a joke (a bad one admittedly) about producing a play about
twenty people lined up at a rock concert bathroom called "Waiting For To
Go."
It'll probably be done by someone, and make them a million or so.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> In article <39e6e6c8$1$28240$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> experiences as anyone else, male or female. Some of my experiences
> and desires are probably more similar to a man's than to a woman's,
> for instance, I've never had a child, or desired to.
>
> > At any rate, I thought one of the reasons we read is to experience
> > the other, or at least other lives and sensibilities.
>
> ourselves in that other person's life and sensibility, then it seems
> (to me), impossible to sustain an interest.
> I suppose part of what I was getting at is that there seems to me a
> female sensibility.
Maybe. Maybe not. It seems to me that saying that there is a distinct
"female sensibility" (apart from culturalization) is possibly making the
case for the wrong side: it appears to be a diminuation of the female to me.
Men have never limited themselves in this way, writing female characters
willy-nilly forever now, good bad or indifferent. For all intents and
purposes there appears to be no overall distinction between the neurology of
a woman and that of a man. But if we are to speak of the liberation of the
imagination, surely this prison of sexual differentation has to be addressed
by all types? There may be a female sensibility (although Gertrude Stein
would kick you out of her house for saying so), but it doesn't appear to
bother me much: I've been reading Emily Dickinson, Sylvia Smith, Jane
Austen, the Brontes, Mary Shelley, and what little we have of Sappho and
other female ancients (including- with great interest - the "pillow books"
of the Japanese women) for decades now, and feel no great gulf looming. It's
like I say: there is more distance between you and a woman of ancient Japan
than there ever could be between you and a contemporary man, and yet that
gulf is rather breezily forded by mere imagination and close-reading. I just
simply do not comprehend the great divide here. At least not personally.
>
> > I mean, how much in common with Aristotle could I possibly have, and
> > yet I love reading his weird logics. I must say that I don't have
> > much in common with Hemingway either, but he composes a damn fine
> > sentence. That's all it takes finally.
>
> Yes, I can and do admire his writing; I love the clean and short
> sentence. I enjoy his Nick Addams stories; they seem very very human
> to me.
> On the other hand, I'm repulsed by the hunting and bull-fighting
> stuff. To me, it's cowardly.
That's another argument. It may be cowardly - I'm certainly no hunter - but
it does represent a slice of human existence, and I - for one - am glad a
good writer tackled it. Most literature is filled with the contemporary
idiocies, the pettiness, the racism, the brutality. And - in effect - your
repulsion shows that you do connect with those things, only negatively.
>
> >
> > The Sappho incident is entirely an accident of a fire: in Alexandria
> > all of her scrolls were supposed to have been stored. She was very
> > popular, and is mentioned in many male's writings of the time as an
> > exemplar.
>
> Were there other famous and well-loved female poets of her stature,
> as well as female playwrights, sculptors, etc.? And in equal numbers?
> You know where I'm going with this, so I'll stop... :)
Equal numbers? Probably not, for the obvious reasons. But we will never
know: others are mentioned and quite admiringly. Truth be told, a lot of
these women had time on their hands on certain social levels, and - like all
humans - they probably made a lot of art. But - frankly - almost all of
Greek culture has been destroyed, and survives as Roman copies for the most
part. But I am not intensely intrigued by a numbers game. Sappho has great
stature, as she did then.
>
>
> > But - as I said - don't we read in part to experience these others?
> > It seems very limiting to me to only read what expresses yourself.
>
> But I think you might be describing a dualism that I don't perceive
> as being there.
> How could we discuss literature if we couldn't enter into the life and
> imagination of the writer. It is as you describe below when you speak
> of the Japanese women writers: their sensibilities cross time and ring
> true.
Yes, but you miss my essential point: it isn't because they are so closely
tied to my own sensibility (or the men of the time either), but that the
process of imaginative reading itself bridges the gulf. I've read books by
countless people that I have no connection with and yet can ascertain value
in. It just strikes me as limiting to say you can find no great commonality
with "white man's" art, when - I think - it is obvious you can and do. Not
liking Hemingway for whatever reason is merely anecdotal: a lot of people,
male and female, don't like him. But it really wasn't me who brought up the
dualism in the first place, I think. You seemed to proffer that yourself:
"As a woman, I don't find book
upon book by white men (or men, period), to be terribly expressive of my
experience or desire."
>
> But as far as the men's/women's writing issue, women have not had equal
> power, and our writing reflects that, as does it dearth in comparison
> to that of men. Yes it is true that there are some female writers who
> have made it into textbooks and classrooms...
Yes, and that is slowly being redressed - powerfully I would think. And
sometimes stupidly. But - as I face the text - these political matters are
not foremost in my mind. The individual speaks or fails to, no matter what
the numbers. And it does little good now to disparage some literature
because the times wove great barriers to women. Not that these aren't
ongoing. And yet there is so much fmeale literature that the well is quite
rich enough for me. Victorian women (some strikingly independent) wrote some
fine books on travel, and on social mores. Diaries have always been there
for women and some great one survive. Burney's is recommended; her
description of her operation is startling and grueling and - most
importantly - it reveals her to be a human being of great bravery. And so
on. I am sure if we stacked up the books men would have the higher pile, but
like they say, "size doesn't matter."
>
> I myself would be thrilled if Lautreamont, who strikes me as being
> very free, had been a female -- or black. Or if Emily hadn't had to
> either: live at her father's house, teach, or marry and have children.
> I would like to think that life had not been such a struggle
> for certain groups as it probably really was.
And I wish I could turn invisible and sneak into movies free. Yet...sigh...
>
> When I was about four and was in Japan I remember a trip to with my
> parents to a historical site. The tour guide spoke, in part, about
> the binding of women's feet. I believe this was a practice that
> continued into this century...
Yes, unbelievable as it seems. And they are still chopping off boy infants'
foreskins while they're strapped to a board. And they draft teenageboys and
send them out to slaughter. There are male and female slaves. Men starve
too. We don't need any more segregation.
>
> [...]
>
> > There are startling examples throughout history: the Japanese have
> > some absolutely stunning female writers, who often show a greater
> > grasp of contemporary mores and day-to-day existence than male
> > writers.
>
> Who do you recommend?
Ah! - I have a little file box. I will dig up the names for you within a day
or two.
>
dmh
Rik Roots
> poetry versus women's. I get confused just thinking about it.
>
> Men have the same desires I have. They have the same experiences.
> The areas we differ are so small they are negligible.
>
Just joshing you, Julie. You are right, of course.
>
>
>
>
>
> Julie Carter
> --
> http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
>
Rik
--
So, soon they topped the hill, and raced together
Over an open stretch of herb and heather
Exposed. And instantly the whole sky burned
With fury against them; earth set sudden cups
In thousands for their blood; and the green slope
Chasmed and steepened sheer to infinite space.
- taken from "Spring Offensive" by Wilfred Owen
JAS Carter
<rikr...@enterprise.net> warbled oh so charmingly:
>> I don't think I've ever noticed a difference in my relating to men's
>> poetry versus women's. I get confused just thinking about it.
>>
>Wow! So you can pee your name in the snow, too!
Well, of course I could, if I wanted to do quite a bit of hopping
around.
>> Men have the same desires I have. They have the same experiences.
>> The areas we differ are so small they are negligible.
>>
>Just joshing you, Julie. You are right, of course.
"Of course"? Woo hoo! I've moved into of course status!
Golly, I'm neat!
Seriously, though, I do get perplexed by the notion of an author's
biography determining my ability to read him/her, or determining
her/his ability to reach me.
I'm really hoping I don't have to read only poetry by 29 year old
Notre Dame grads. Gak.
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> Seriously, though, I do get perplexed by the notion of an author's
> biography determining my ability to read him/her, or determining
> her/his ability to reach me.
I forget whether it was Hollander or Harold Bloom, one of them was
saying in a polemical passage that today's academics would have it that
Shakespeare wrote what he wrote because of where and when and the times
and the climes and all like that; but then what about his
contemporaries, like Cervantes and Fitzgerald, they never wrote like
that.
-chuckk
trying to earn the reputation of biggest bullshitter on the ng
Dale Houstman
> In article <39e75588$0$28251$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> > > > At any rate, I thought one of the reasons we read is to
> > > > experience the other, or at least other lives and sensibilities.
>
> > > Sure. It's not either/or. But if we don't in some real way
> > > recognize ourselves in that other person's life and sensibility,
> > > then it seems (to me), impossible to sustain an interest.
> > > I suppose part of what I was getting at is that there seems to me
> > > a female sensibility.
>
> > Maybe. Maybe not. It seems to me that saying that there is a
> > distinct "female sensibility" (apart from culturalization)
>
Didn't you say the quote above? Maybe I'm drunk! It wouldn't be the first
time! "...there seems to me a female sensibility" Am I misreading you?
Again - not unusual!
>
>
>
>
> I certainly don't love every work by women any more than I do every
> poem etc. by men (white or otherwise); I named Adrienne Rich as an
> example of a poet whose stuff I don't like; there are more than she.
I assumed so. Maya Angelou (for one instance that springs to mind) makes my
skin crawl up my backside, looking for a safe place to hide. This isn't
helped by her "wise woman" stance, which she appears only too anxious to
take on.
>
> I for one don't feel that I need to embrace all art created by any
> group, but to say that I don't enjoy everything by that group is not
> a disparagement of the people in that group.
>
> I tried at the end of my last post to express something about
> transcendent talent, which I see as independent of gender (or age,
> era, color, ethnicity, etc., for that matter). Surely we are in
> agreement on that?
The only part I might have trouble with is the notion of "talent." It isn't
worth arguing about, as no one is about to be convinced. I just firmly
believe (against all evidence maybe?) that anyone can do
"it" given a certain "capture" of liberation. It is probably naive of me,
but it is the vague ease of my own "method" (sort of a fragmented plagarism)
that leads me to this conclusion: I find it exceedingly difficult to
understand why this game couldn't be played by anyone showing interest.
>
> > > On the other hand, I'm repulsed by the hunting and bull-fighting
> > > stuff. To me, it's cowardly.
> >
> > That's another argument. It may be cowardly - I'm certainly no hunter
> > - but it does represent a slice of human existence, and I - for
> > one - am glad a good writer tackled it. Most literature is filled
> > with the contemporary idiocies, the pettiness, the racism, the
> > brutality.
>
> > And - in effect - your repulsion shows that you do connect with
> > those things, only negatively.
>
> Absolutely. But weren't we talking about whether or not men and women
> have "the same experiences and desires"?
Yes and no. Personally I'm getting lost in the threads! Maybe I should have
tied a labyrinth to me finger to get out? I think what I am saying is that
these differences are mere inculturation, longstanding or not. There are
"feminine" men and "butch" woman, and so on. There are obviously many female
hunters - I think this is not true with bullfighters - so the lines continue
to blur quite beyond my ability to see them in such dim light! I don't
mean - by saying "men and women have the same desires" that ALL men and
women have the same desires, or that these desires are expressed in similar
fashion: either due to physical limitations or cultural mandates. But both
strike me as rather superficial compared to the power of the desires
themselves, as expressed via art.
>
>
> > > > The Sappho incident is entirely an accident of a fire: in
> > > > Alexandria all of her scrolls were supposed to have been stored.
>
> Like "Homer's" epics. Supposedly the Library at Alexandria housed
> eight of them...
IF: Homer ever existed at all. It's iffy...
>
> (And wasn't it Samuel Butler who said that "Nausicca" wrote _The
> Odyssey_. :) Now don't get grumpy with me please, but if true that
> would be marvelous, to me. :)
I have that book! It's a hoot, and rather obviously false. But Butler cracks
me up.
>
> > > > She was very popular, and is mentioned in many male's writings
> > > > of the time as an exemplar.
>
> > > Were there other famous and well-loved female poets of her stature,
> > > as well as female playwrights, sculptors, etc.? And in equal
> > > numbers? You know where I'm going with this, so I'll stop... :)
>
> > Equal numbers? Probably not, for the obvious reasons.
>
> [...]
That dreaded male domination of the printing press...
>
> > > > But - as I said - don't we read in part to experience these
> > > > others? It seems very limiting to me to only read what
> > > > expresses yourself.
>
> > > But I think you might be describing a dualism that I don't
> > > perceive as being there.
> > > How could we discuss literature if we couldn't enter into the life
> > > and imagination of the writer.
>
> > > It is as you describe below when you speak
> > > of the Japanese women writers: their sensibilities cross time and
> > > ring true.
>
> > Yes, but you miss my essential point:
>
> No...
Okay. I missed you NOT missing my essential point! Admittedly, I'm getting
lost.
>
> > It isn't because they are so closely tied to my own sensibility
>
> No, didn't say they were. What I meant to express, but apparently
> didn't, is that we of course read to "experience these others".
>
> > (or the men of the time either), but that the process of imaginative
> reading itself bridges the gulf.
>
> Like I said:
>
> > > But I think you might be describing a dualism that I don't
> > > perceive as being there.
>
> I really don't. When we read (and write) what we love, we feel more
> human: alive and connected to ourselves and others.
>
> > > How could we discuss literature if we couldn't enter into the
> > > life and imagination of the writer.
>
> To do this we use our own imaginations.
>
> I think we are all, essentially, in agreement.
>
Yes; I think so. I'll stop drinking for a day and let you know...
dmh
Chuckk Hubbard
>
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. It seems to me that saying that there is a distinct
> "female sensibility" (apart from culturalization) is possibly making the
> case for the wrong side: it appears to be a diminuation of the female to me.
> Men have never limited themselves in this way, writing female characters
> willy-nilly forever now, good bad or indifferent. For all intents and
> purposes there appears to be no overall distinction between the neurology of
> a woman and that of a man.
Hell, I bet Josh knows. Any brain surgeons posting here? Testosterone
and estrogen both change a person's demeanor. Supposedly they affect or
effect the way people think, a la spatial vs intuitive (I use "vs" only
for effect or affect), but many men are pretty weak in spatial thought
to start with, for instance, and there's really only so much hormones
can do for them. Also, speaking of Stein, I don't doubt she had her
share of testosterone to work with (I've seen photos of her).
Practically, though, fans of music with ridiculous mathematical
improbabilities are most dependably adolescent boys (does Christina
Aguilera count as ridiculous mathematical improbabilities?). Is this
for strictly social reasons? Statistically (though I can't quote any),
Chinamen perform higher on the SAT than anyone, and boys higher than
girls. Not that the SAT is a great test, but that divide is pretty
outstanding.
I'm never convinced, but I don't find it at all hard to believe that
there are differences, in the big sweeping general sense; though on a
personal level, nobody needs everybody else to tell them their
sensibilities; I have more interest in a writer who doesn't fit in,
period, than I have in any mash of expressors. Who wants to be "one
of"?
I'm confused already. I don't like this "issue" because I hate being
careful of what I say.
> like I say: there is more distance between you and a woman of ancient Japan
> than there ever could be between you and a contemporary man, and yet that
I began a book on the history of aesthetics. I was amazed to read that
for much of history the form of representation was seriously considered
less important than the practical purpose of the works... this implies
there is something natural about aesthetics, if one of us can view these
anceint works, having no clue what their purpose was or what the "times"
were like, and find them beautiful (of course, this history was of
aesthetics, so it's possible the artists themselves had no say in all
this gumbo). I find art to be an almost absolutely solipsistic
experience. I don't like the fucking YMCA song, or the Time Warp
either.
I remember being told this was sort of the point of Archaic Torso of
Apollo. I suppose Rilke has a pretty unique spot of his own, if what
the books say is true.
> Yes, unbelievable as it seems. And they are still chopping off boy infants'
> foreskins while they're strapped to a board. And they draft teenageboys and
> send them out to slaughter. There are male and female slaves. Men starve
> too. We don't need any more segregation.
I agree, obviously. Men even get breast cancer, I've heard. And hell,
people still beat the fuck out of each other. Men don't get raped
nearly as often, but tell that to one who has been.
-chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> > I think we are all, essentially, in agreement.
> >
> Yes; I think so. I'll stop drinking for a day and let you know...
>
> dmh
"What a country!" -Yakov Smirnoff
Dale Houstman
"Joshua P. Hill" <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aejfuso3qr194dkm3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:41:19 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> >IF: Homer ever existed at all. It's iffy...
>
> Odyssey hadn't been written by Homer at all, but by another man of the
> same name?
>
>
Matt Groening? Casey Stengel? Ma Yokum?
Got me...
The prevailing (forever ephemeral) theory is that the things are actually
collaborative oral texts, their origins scattered and multiplex, and given
a final polish by the group of "Homerites" (or whatever) who emerged in
Greece at a later date. Homer was then mythopoetically mandated as blind
because... well blind people are wise and have a "special" relationship with
the deities.
See what having a special relationship with a god gets you?
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> >
> > Maybe. Maybe not. It seems to me that saying that there is a distinct
> > "female sensibility" (apart from culturalization) is possibly making the
> > case for the wrong side: it appears to be a diminuation of the female to
me.
> > Men have never limited themselves in this way, writing female characters
> > willy-nilly forever now, good bad or indifferent. For all intents and
> > purposes there appears to be no overall distinction between the
neurology of
> > a woman and that of a man.
>
> and estrogen both change a person's demeanor.
A lot of the latest findings seem to imply that testosterone isn't really
the aggression switch it is thought to be. No doubt it does something, but
so does aspirin. Can I read the literature of those who use too much
caffeine?
This issue - with everyone basically agrreing - is giving me a headache.
The main point - it seems to me - is that of course there are differences
between the sexes, and differences between individuals, and differences
between cultures, and even differences between myself and I on different
days and in different seasons. But what does this matter as to whether or
not I can read someone else's work or not? The differences between you and
almost any contemporary member of the opposite sex pales to insignificance
next to the differences between you and any member of the same sex from an
older and culturally divergent civilization (or pre-civilization) yet one
can still read and grasp. The cave paintings speak volumes. One can easily
understand the economics woes of early Mesopotamian merchants recorded in
columns of figures that don't add up. Sappho's description of the fiery
thrill that invades her skin when a loved one sits next to her is totally
comprehensible to me. And so on. But what could the thoughts of a lonely
Aegean girl mean to me? Everything I guess.
> I began a book on the history of aesthetics. I was amazed to read that
> for much of history the form of representation was seriously considered
> less important than the practical purpose of the works... this implies
> there is something natural about aesthetics, if one of us can view these
> anceint works, having no clue what their purpose was or what the "times"
> were like, and find them beautiful (of course, this history was of
> aesthetics, so it's possible the artists themselves had no say in all
> this gumbo). I find art to be an almost absolutely solipsistic
> experience. I don't like the fucking YMCA song, or the Time Warp
> either.
> I remember being told this was sort of the point of Archaic Torso of
> Apollo. I suppose Rilke has a pretty unique spot of his own, if what
> the books say is true.
>
>
> > Yes, unbelievable as it seems. And they are still chopping off boy
infants'
> > foreskins while they're strapped to a board. And they draft teenageboys
and
> > send them out to slaughter. There are male and female slaves. Men starve
> > too. We don't need any more segregation.
>
> I agree, obviously. Men even get breast cancer, I've heard. And hell,
> people still beat the fuck out of each other. Men don't get raped
> nearly as often, but tell that to one who has been.
>
Also - and I know this isn't a popular notion - I tend not to think of this
as a "white man's world" despite the obvious numbers: culture is a
collaborative venture. What we live in is as much a result of mothers and
sisters as it is brothers and fathers. While modern women may - rightfully -
not be too thrilled with their previous roles, those roles have as much to
do with the advances and backsteppings of culture as anything else. While
women have had different roles in the process, and now find themselves
wanting more (personally I want less) I don't overall find that society is
that much better off because of it. I do know that the influx of women into
the work force has made corporations very happy. Almost twice as many
available laborers! That keeps the need for higher wages at a staystill. I
would rather have had women and men demand to "share" that load: varying
schedules of off-site work and homework. In fact I would like all of us to
demand less work overall, rather than a toehold in the corprate ladder. I'm
just not thrilled by women clambering to enter what I think of as a form of
salaried slavery. All in all I think this would have been better for men,
women, and children. Still we got what we got, everyone works 24/7/52. My
world and you're welcome to it!
dmh
Dale Houstman
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:31:52 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
> <badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sure there are differences. They show up in test scores, in the
> relative anatomical size of various brain features, in animals, in
> people of either sex who are given hormones. Just look at a how
> compassionate Giuliani got when he started hormone treatment for his
> prostate cancer (am I the only one who noticed the correlation?). In
> general, tests show that women have greater verbal facility and fine
> motor control, while men excel at spatial reasoning. But the
> differences are statistical. As Dale points out (I think as Dale
> points out--only had time to skim his post), there are some women who
> are tougher than some men, some men who are more compassionate than
> some women, and so on down the line.
Of course. In my house (well - it belongs to my familiar, but I'm being
proprietary!) I am the verbal one, and Theresa is not particularly so. In
fact she's always telling me to shut up. All I'm getting at is that although
sexual differences exist, they pale to insignificance in the general flux of
differences that make up individuals, cultures, etc. They are difficult to
keep focussed, and not really "to the point" as far as designating what and
who one can or should read. For me I think Austen has more to say to me than
Hemingway, but then Hemingway has more to say to me than Rich. And so on:
the target keeps wobbling as if it were drunk on words!
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > > I think we are all, essentially, in agreement.
> > >
> > Yes; I think so. I'll stop drinking for a day and let you know...
> >
> > dmh
>
Now there's a male "genius" I don't think has anything to say to me!
"What? This is a country?" - Cumrag Guiness
Dale Houstman
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:27:04 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Joshua P. Hill" <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:41:19 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
> >> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Odyssey hadn't been written by Homer at all, but by another man of the
> >> same name?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Matt Groening? Casey Stengel? Ma Yokum?
> >
> >Got me...
>
>it . . .
>
But surely you were all high when he said it?
> >The prevailing (forever ephemeral) theory is that the things are actually
> >collaborative oral texts, their origins scattered and multiplex, and
given
> >a final polish by the group of "Homerites" (or whatever) who emerged in
> >Greece at a later date. Homer was then mythopoetically mandated as blind
> >because... well blind people are wise and have a "special" relationship
with
> >the deities.
>
> Ah, academics.
>
> The prevailing theory is that Josh was actually a group personality,
> created and orchestrated by Cheryl, Lysalight, and Farragher, the
> origins of his posts scattered and multiplex, but dumbed down by a
> group of "Joshites" who emerged on Usenet at a later date. Josh was
> mythopoetically mandated as having a small penis because the Joshites
> were, let's face it, a jealous bunch.
Yet, we all suspect it is true nevertheless. That's according to the newest
spy-sat photos. Man, the lenses on those things am good!
>
> Dale, OTOH, was a corporate entity, designed to prepare an
> unsuspecting public for the Walt Disney Company's increasing role in
> government.
>
Me and the Goofy Patrol, armed with rubber chickens and Clarabelle Bombs;
all provided by anonymous plutocrats of course. Take the mickey out of you
good, daffy.
dmh
Chuckk Hubbard
> > Hell, I bet Josh knows. Any brain surgeons posting here? Testosterone
> > and estrogen both change a person's demeanor.
>
> A lot of the latest findings seem to imply that testosterone isn't really
> the aggression switch it is thought to be. No doubt it does something, but
> so does aspirin. Can I read the literature of those who use too much
> caffeine?
Isn't that why we're here?
> > > too. We don't need any more segregation.
> >
> > I agree, obviously. Men even get breast cancer, I've heard. And hell,
> > people still beat the fuck out of each other. Men don't get raped
> > nearly as often, but tell that to one who has been.
> >
> Also - and I know this isn't a popular notion - I tend not to think of this
> as a "white man's world" despite the obvious numbers: culture is a
> collaborative venture. What we live in is as much a result of mothers and
> sisters as it is brothers and fathers. While modern women may - rightfully -
> not be too thrilled with their previous roles, those roles have as much to
> do with the advances and backsteppings of culture as anything else. While
> women have had different roles in the process, and now find themselves
> wanting more (personally I want less) I don't overall find that society is
> that much better off because of it. I do know that the influx of women into
> the work force has made corporations very happy. Almost twice as many
> available laborers! That keeps the need for higher wages at a staystill. I
> would rather have had women and men demand to "share" that load: varying
> schedules of off-site work and homework. In fact I would like all of us to
> demand less work overall, rather than a toehold in the corprate ladder. I'm
> just not thrilled by women clambering to enter what I think of as a form of
> salaried slavery. All in all I think this would have been better for men,
> women, and children. Still we got what we got, everyone works 24/7/52. My
> world and you're welcome to it!
>
> dmh
I did just get promoted, I'm in charge of night shift, 6 women and me.
I hate it. Nothing bad to say about my coworkers, but I hate it. It's
not a mindless job anymore, it demands territory in my mind. On the
other hand, I have a chance to "set an example". heh heh
-chuckk
let them eat cake
arethusa
>
>> > > > > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > news:8s68dq$u28$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > > > > > In article <39e67123$0$28252$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
>> > > > > > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
[...]
talk about thread drift!
denise
peggy swanier
sees me now as I crotch under a foamy wave..
http://community.webtv.net/moodsmagazine/MOODSMAGAZINEA610-3737-054/always
apleasure!
Redclay 6
getting to know you.>>
y'all aint gone start sangin, er you?
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:26:36 GMT, cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> > > > > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> > > > > news:8s68dq$u28$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> > > > > > In article <39e67123$0$28252$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> >> > > > > > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>
> talk about thread drift!
>
> denise
Yes, let's talk about thread drift...
chuckk
Dale Houstman
>
> > > > > > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:8s68dq$u28$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > > > In article <39e67123$0$28252$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> > > > > > > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I suppose part of what I was getting at is that there seems to
> > > > > me a female sensibility.
> > >
> > > > Maybe. Maybe not. It seems to me that saying that there is a
> > > > distinct "female sensibility" (apart from culturalization)
> > >
> > > :) That isn't what I said.
> >
> > Didn't you say the quote above? Maybe I'm drunk! It wouldn't be the
>
> But when I say "there seems to me...", I am not stating that such-and-
> such is fact. I actually don't know if "there is a distinct 'female
> sensibility'". Nor do I know what it might be, independent of
> culturization--except that it would be related to physical (including
> neurological) differences.
Sure, I understand, but I must admit it seems like linguistic hair-splitting
just a little bit. To say "it seems to me..." IS to posit something if only
vaguely. But "whatever" as all the rude young people say.
>
> As for one neurological difference between the human sexes, I have
> something on video that I'll take a look at and let you know the name
> of the part of the brain that is more large in women (it's called
> something like "cingulate gyrus" I think).
Well: "it ain't the meat it's the motion."
>
> Its extra size has been said to account for "women's intuition". (So
> *who* says size doesn't count? :)
I don't get this "intuition" thing: isn't that guess informed guessing with
an emotional ambience? Men have what they call "gut feelings" all the time:
in fact men are supposed to be rather impetuous and apt to barge ahead
without consideration. I think female intuition is a myth, and one of those
"compensatory" items they always assign to those viewed as "lacking": the
wisdom of the blind and the idiotic, the black man's rhythm, and so on. As
such it strikes me as old baggage. I mean -unless one is willing to impart
some mystical basis to intuition (which I know you aren't) what IS it?
>
>
> > I assumed so. Maya Angelou (for one instance that springs to mind)
> > makes my skin crawl up my backside, looking for a safe place to
> > hide. This isn't helped by her "wise woman" stance, which she
> > appears only too anxious to take on.
>
> Ooh, I wish she wouldn't talk in "that" voice. Makes me duck my head
> when I hear it.
She can't help it now: she has sculpted her behavior towards acceptance and
fame. She is little short of a Disney animatronic figure of the "black
female shaman" now. Quite revolting I think. And - to be frank - another
example of the "compensatory" process: the wise village black Momma.
> > >
> > >
> > > I tried at the end of my last post to express something about
> > > transcendent talent, which I see as independent of gender (or age,
> > > era, color, ethnicity, etc., for that matter). Surely we are in
> > > agreement on that?
> >
> > The only part I might have trouble with is the notion of "talent."
> > It isn't worth arguing about, as no one is about to be convinced. I
> > just firmly believe (against all evidence maybe?) that anyone can
> > do "it" given a certain "capture" of liberation. It is probably
> > naive of me, but it is the vague ease of my own "method" (sort of a
> > fragmented plagarism) that leads me to this conclusion: I find it
> > exceedingly difficult to understand why this game couldn't be played
> > by anyone showing interest.
>
> Hmmm... I think that's kind of my point too.
I had it first! Go find your own point. K-Mart has a sale, I think.
But I don't quite see that point in your statement at that.
>
> cythera...
> getting to know you.
dmh
getting to know all about you
>
>
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > "Chuckk Hubbard" <badger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:39E7D3A8...@hotmail.com...
> > > Hell, I bet Josh knows. Any brain surgeons posting here?
Testosterone
> > > and estrogen both change a person's demeanor.
> >
> > A lot of the latest findings seem to imply that testosterone isn't
really
> > the aggression switch it is thought to be. No doubt it does something,
but
> > so does aspirin. Can I read the literature of those who use too much
> > caffeine?
>
> Isn't that why we're here?
>
> > >
is at the door...
dmh
Dale Houstman
"arethusa" <aret...@microxl.com> wrote in message
news:vqphuskqs9urj4opp...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:26:36 GMT, cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> > > > > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> > > > > news:8s68dq$u28$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> > > > > > In article <39e67123$0$28252$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> >> > > > > > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>
> talk about thread drift!
>
twenty years it will explain how Moscow managed to end up with a McDonalds.
dmh
arethusa
<dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>"arethusa" <aret...@microxl.com> wrote in message
>news:vqphuskqs9urj4opp...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:26:36 GMT, cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> > > > > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >> > > > > news:8s68dq$u28$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >> > > > > > In article <39e67123$0$28252$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
>> >> > > > > > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> talk about thread drift!
>>
>Right now that's just a theory (like Continental Drift used to be) but in
>twenty years it will explain how Moscow managed to end up with a McDonalds.
>
>dmh
>
and then i expect someone will try to write a poem about it.
denise
Chuckk Hubbard
> > Dale Houstman wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we are all, essentially, in agreement.
> > > >
> > > Yes; I think so. I'll stop drinking for a day and let you know...
> > >
> > > dmh
> >
>
> Now there's a male "genius" I don't think has anything to say to me!
>
> "What? This is a country?" - Cumrag Guiness
"I can't believe it's not butter!" -corpulent America
"Us, the people" -the US Constitution
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> > > > > > > In article <39e67123$0$28252$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> > > > > > > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> > I assumed so. Maya Angelou (for one instance that springs to mind)
> > makes my skin crawl up my backside, looking for a safe place to
> > hide. This isn't helped by her "wise woman" stance, which she
> > appears only too anxious to take on.
>
> when I hear it.
No one close to her is willing to tell her how it is, and she's too wise
to listen to anyone else. Surrounded by yes-men. I know why the caged
bird slams against the cage until it dies.
chuckk
Dale Houstman
> In article <39e97e93$0$28250$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
>
> More intriguing to me though is the idea of talent. I do feel that if
> (for instance, with you), one could subtract that "capture", the
> "method", and the years of study and writing, there still remains a je
> ne sais qua that I simply call "talent"... and in my experience it is
> uncommon.
>
> But you _will_ be modest. I do not find fault you for that... (:
>
Yeah: it might have been a degree of false modesty (so as to elicit cries
of "oh no! you're really talented") a decade or more ago, but it really is
something else now.
I agree that there are probably neurological limits to some human brains
that would tend to "de-potentialize" some to specific areas of
accomplishment. All I am saying is that I think this is a rarer source of
"lack of talent" than maybe certain socializations. The only basis I have
for this is the quite widespread existence of visual and verbal uniqueness
in young (pre-school) children. I've used this personal example before: my
niece had an energetic (and abstract) appreciation for color and form and
gesture. As soon as she was "imprisoned" at school, the usual dreary
procession of moms and dads standing in front of little homes appeared. So -
for myself - I see "talent" more as a result of survivial techniques: this
(in my case) took the form of going inside, and pretending to be quite
"normal" while internally disparaging the lessons. Now, whether or not this
defensive stance itself represents a sort of talent is another question.
Some do seem to have fallback positions and some don't. This - in turn -
might be neurological or the result of early experiences, or some degree of
home support. But - in general - I believe most of this could be addressed
(although it won't be: individualism is NOT a socially desireable trait) by
rather simple adjustments of educational methods and expectations.
Historically there seem to be "high points" in cultural systems: whether or
not this is a result of pedalogical environments or a lack of lead in the
pipes is beyond me. But I do know that American education - but for the
occasional teacher of merit - is not out to encourage experimentation and
artistic courage.
dmh
Dale Houstman
>
> Miss Geech
How would Little Missie like a baseball bat up her asymptote?
The Big Student In Back
Chuckk Hubbard
> >
> > I did just get promoted, I'm in charge of night shift, 6 women and me.
> > I hate it. Nothing bad to say about my coworkers, but I hate it. It's
> > not a mindless job anymore, it demands territory in my mind. On the
> > other hand, I have a chance to "set an example". heh heh
> >
> Oh Beulah Land help the children! The Hubbardization of an entire generation
> is at the door...
>
I'll call it Scientiatry and die rich. On second thought, I'll die the
rich and bleach the poor. Maybe I'll pour bleach on a bald whore, or
ball a whore in the corner pocket.
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8sd44k$vnm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <39e97e93$0$28250$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> >
> > More intriguing to me though is the idea of talent. I do feel that if
> > (for instance, with you), one could subtract that "capture", the
> > "method", and the years of study and writing, there still remains a je
> > ne sais qua that I simply call "talent"... and in my experience it is
> > uncommon.
> >
> > But you _will_ be modest. I do not find fault you for that... (:
> >
That's not giving them credit, they also discourage mathematical prodigy
in the early grades (SHOW YOUR WORK.), another form of "talent" that few
retain into adulthood, though many people think they did.
It's interesting that talent and intuition should come up in different
places in the same thread (though less surprising that you would disavow
both). But I remember reading that WJ Sidis wrote some papers on the
subconscious aspects of intelligence- forgive me if I haven't read them,
but I'm sure they're too deep for me- and I've experienced such things.
It's common, in fact. You think of a word or the perfect comeback or
whatever, after you stop trying. Or how a certain song goes. Whether
I'd be better at it as a woman is hard to say and painful to imagine,
but I think there's a lot of variance between people, and I definitely
think it effects writing (and it's definitely effected by gingko). You
did say you didn't want to argue the point, though. Ultimately any
talents or lack-of-talents out there aren't going to stop or start
according to what anyone here thinks in regard to talent. Let abstract
meanderings stay out of concrete results, and concrete results stay out
of abstract meanderings.
As for difficulty in poetry, I like it to be a challenge; maybe that's a
mistake. Not everybody wants what you have- I like your poems, I can
say now, but I still like to include some logical argument, personally.
Which reminds me, I ought to be writing poetry.
-chuckk
Dale Houstman
Yes: I was born in England and began school a year earlier than most
American children under (as it was then) a more stringent course of
instruction. By the time I entered school in California, I was already
reading at a fairly competent level. My teacher actually saw me reading a
newspaper section I had brought to school one day (now I'm too "wise" to
think newspapers are particulary worth reading!); she asked me not to do
that, because it made the other children "feel bad." And so on.
> It's interesting that talent and intuition should come up in different
> places in the same thread (though less surprising that you would disavow
> both).
I am not certain that's exactly it: I tend to distrust any word that
describes a process or event that is "semi-mystical" in nature, having vague
parameters and effects. I mean, I see people who strike me as talented, and
I see examples of what I would call intuition, but they seem to me to be
otherwise definable if the effort is made. In other words, I don't disparage
the existence of the words (I see examples of both often), but only the
connotations they have accrued on their march into abstraction. Henry
Kissinger is "talented," Kenny G, etc.
But I remember reading that WJ Sidis wrote some papers on the
> subconscious aspects of intelligence- forgive me if I haven't read them,
> but I'm sure they're too deep for me- and I've experienced such things.
> It's common, in fact. You think of a word or the perfect comeback or
> whatever, after you stop trying.
Yes, this happens again and again (you find an object once you've stopped
looking for it) but - as I said - there is a more precise manner in which to
speak of these things: neurologically. It is a fact that one tends to go
over and over the same neural route when actively thinking, forming
obsessive "ruts" in the cognitive process. Ceasing this "plowing" allows the
brain to re-route. I wouldn't call it inuition, but an understandable event.
I know the word "inuition" refers to this event, but - all in all -
especially in the case of "female inuition" (which I don't think
particularly exists as a unique thing) the word has taken on mythopoetical
aspects that are grotesque and not much different from a belief in fairies.
.
> As for difficulty in poetry, I like it to be a challenge; maybe that's a
> mistake. Not everybody wants what you have- I like your poems, I can
> say now, but I still like to include some logical argument, personally.
> Which reminds me, I ought to be writing poetry.
>
I think my poetry (despite the obvious signs of incipient lunacy) is very
logical. There is a reason I sometimes describe the process of writing a
poem as akin to constructing a piece of furniture: one has to know where the
bits go, no matter how baroque the individual pieces may seem. This is a
logical process. The "logical argument" is buried in the construction, not
so much in the phrases themselves, which are components so to speak. This is
little different from nonsense poetry which has to adher to rather
conservative processes to be recognized despite the surface craziness of
word play and disjunction.
dmh
Alacrity Stone
> especially in the case of "female inuition" (which I don't think
> particularly exists as a unique thing) the word has taken on mythopoetical
> aspects that are grotesque and not much different from a belief in fairies.
> .
My feminine intuition tells me you're wrong. I can't present a reasoned
argument to support this, It's just a feeling I have:)
"inuition"
What an interesting typo, or were you referring to the importance of
intuition in the survival of the inuit in the harsh conditions which,
historically, they have lived?
The concept of "feminine intuition" is a consequence of the fact that
women are less involved in philosophical or scientific thought. I don't
suppose this is because of any physical limitation. It may be a
consequence of the adolescent need for a clear social identity, the need
to be womanish or manish.
I see the intuitive process as being the diffusion of the light of
awareness over the vast landscape of the subconscious mind; a flicker of
lightning, if you will. Reason is like the beam of a flashlight; bright
and focussed. In the creative process, one needs to utilize both of
these modes of illumination (which probably explains why so many artists
are gay or bi-sexual).
Your argument, as I understand it, is that intuition is not necessarily
in the feminine domain: Neither is emotion:) It is extremely difficult
to separate the feminine from the masculine these days, but I would
hazard to guess that the intuitive process is more effective in people
who utilize it more often, and due to the dominance of men in in the
area of reason (no female philosophers come to mind), I would think it
only logical to conclude that, generally speaking, women enjoy a similar
dominance in the area of intuitive thought. Just as intuition is
useless without reason, so to is reason useless without intuition.
Reason can lead us to commit murder, to lay waste to the planet, to
destroy all that is beautiful. Intuition tells us this is foolish, but
can offer no real solution.
I was watching the news yesterday, and thinking about the current
conflict in the middle east. My intuition tells me that there will be no
peace in that region until the women are liberated.
R.F.
.
Dale Houstman
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:24:26 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, this happens again and again (you find an object once you've stopped
> >looking for it) but - as I said - there is a more precise manner in which
to
> >speak of these things: neurologically. It is a fact that one tends to go
> >over and over the same neural route when actively thinking, forming
> >obsessive "ruts" in the cognitive process. Ceasing this "plowing" allows
the
> >brain to re-route. I wouldn't call it inuition, but an understandable
event.
> >I know the word "inuition" refers to this event, but - all in all -
> >especially in the case of "female inuition" (which I don't think
> >particularly exists as a unique thing) the word has taken on
mythopoetical
> >aspects that are grotesque and not much different from a belief in
fairies.
>
> stereotypical quesitionableness of ")((@#) woman drivers" and those
> archetypal women who supposedly can't balance their checking accounts,
> except that, as I think you pointed out, "female intuition" is a
> special quality conferred to make up for an ostensbile lack of
> rational intelligence.
>
> But hell, that's the impression I have of today's woman's lib, too.
> What was at the beginning mostly a simple matter of fairness became a
> justification for the very system of male preference it was supposed
> to supplant when it moved from the assumption that women should not be
> banned from doing the things men can to the assumption that the things
> women traditionally did, like raising families, are soemhow inferior.
>
> > I think my poetry (despite the obvious signs of incipient lunacy) is
very
> >logical. There is a reason I sometimes describe the process of writing a
> >poem as akin to constructing a piece of furniture: one has to know where
the
> >bits go, no matter how baroque the individual pieces may seem. This is a
> >logical process. The "logical argument" is buried in the construction,
not
> >so much in the phrases themselves, which are components so to speak. This
is
> >little different from nonsense poetry which has to adher to rather
> >conservative processes to be recognized despite the surface craziness of
> >word play and disjunction.
>
> which seems to be the standard means of transmitting structure without
> the baggage of "a local habitation and a name." . . .
>
Sure, but playing with linguistic expectations (and derailing them by
"pretending" to present what is a clear message) is a different bag. No one
goes into a purely musical experience expecting that concrete meanings will
be present, but almost everyone is conditioned to expect "sense" from a
text. So the potential for "aggravation" is greater, as is the potential for
fooling the mind into thinking what is being presented does indeed make
"sense." A lot then will be read into the lines: this is the arena I work in
most of the time, so I pray it's legitimate!
dmh
eddie_...@my-deja.com
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> "Joshua P. Hill" <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3v0musshpict2k573...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:24:26 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
> > <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
stopped
> > >looking for it) but - as I said - there is a more precise manner in
which
> to
> > >speak of these things: neurologically. It is a fact that one tends
to go
> > >over and over the same neural route when actively thinking, forming
> > >obsessive "ruts" in the cognitive process. Ceasing this "plowing"
allows
> the
> > >brain to re-route. I wouldn't call it inuition, but an
understandable
> event.
> > >I know the word "inuition" refers to this event, but - all in all -
> > >especially in the case of "female inuition" (which I don't think
> > >particularly exists as a unique thing) the word has taken on
> mythopoetical
> > >aspects that are grotesque and not much different from a belief in
> fairies.
> >
> > stereotypical quesitionableness of ")((@#) woman drivers" and those
> > archetypal women who supposedly can't balance their checking
accounts,
> > except that, as I think you pointed out, "female intuition" is a
> > special quality conferred to make up for an ostensbile lack of
> > rational intelligence.
> >
> > But hell, that's the impression I have of today's woman's lib, too.
> > What was at the beginning mostly a simple matter of fairness became
a
> > justification for the very system of male preference it was supposed
> > to supplant when it moved from the assumption that women should not
be
> > banned from doing the things men can to the assumption that the
things
> > women traditionally did, like raising families, are soemhow
inferior.
> >
is
> very
> > >logical. There is a reason I sometimes describe the process of
writing a
> > >poem as akin to constructing a piece of furniture: one has to know
where
> the
> > >bits go, no matter how baroque the individual pieces may seem. This
is a
> > >logical process. The "logical argument" is buried in the
construction,
> not
> > >so much in the phrases themselves, which are components so to
speak. This
> is
> > >little different from nonsense poetry which has to adher to rather
> > >conservative processes to be recognized despite the surface
craziness of
> > >word play and disjunction.
> >
instead,
> > which seems to be the standard means of transmitting structure
without
> > the baggage of "a local habitation and a name." . . .
> >
> Sure, but playing with linguistic expectations (and derailing them by
> "pretending" to present what is a clear message) is a different bag.
No one
> goes into a purely musical experience expecting that concrete meanings
will
> be present, but almost everyone is conditioned to expect "sense" from
a
> text. So the potential for "aggravation" is greater, as is the
potential for
> fooling the mind into thinking what is being presented does indeed
make
> "sense." A lot then will be read into the lines: this is the arena I
work in
> most of the time, so I pray it's legitimate!
>
> dmh
But isn't there more involved than just a thwarting of expectations,
however stimulating and generative that can be? Can't a more positive
form of logic be conveyed through structure alone or so-called musical
language, not as just an alternative to conventional verbal logic, but
as an autonomous path to a different kind of understanding?
I don't completely accept the dichotomy between music and language, Josh
(I got your post only through Dale's response), as if language that
doesn't make sense but sounds nice (or not) is a form of music, and
would be better expressed that way. Even in music there is the abstract
and representational distinction. Arnold Bax went to great lengths to
convince others that certain of his symphonies were pure music, and not
representations of personal experiences.
Painting of course also has the abstract/representational distinction,
and both are acceptable forms that have come to be understood, both
generating in the creator and the viewer realms of experience that are
for some strange reason necessary to us. To me the decisive factor is
whether whatever is expressed conveys a realm of actual life experience,
not necessarily something that has been previously experienced, but at
least as something possible, or even that exists only in the work
itself.
In my case I can look into certain abstract paintings, or read a
supposedly abstract poem, and actually feel processes coalescing inside
me, drawing out submerged realms of experience and ordering inchoate
memories/feelings/thoughts etc. Sometimes the sensation is, admittedly,
as ephemeral as butterfly dust, but I'm nevertheless grateful for the
opportunity and don't know how I'd live without it.
Eddie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> "Chuckk Hubbard" <badger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39EAE354...@hotmail.com...
> > Dale Houstman wrote:
> > >
> > > pipes is beyond me. But I do know that American education - but for the
> > > occasional teacher of merit - is not out to encourage experimentation
> and
> > > artistic courage.
> > >
> > > dmh
> >
> > That's not giving them credit, they also discourage mathematical prodigy
> > in the early grades (SHOW YOUR WORK.), another form of "talent" that few
> > retain into adulthood, though many people think they did.
>
> Yes: I was born in England and began school a year earlier than most
> American children under (as it was then) a more stringent course of
> instruction. By the time I entered school in California, I was already
> reading at a fairly competent level. My teacher actually saw me reading a
> newspaper section I had brought to school one day (now I'm too "wise" to
> think newspapers are particulary worth reading!); she asked me not to do
> that, because it made the other children "feel bad." And so on.
That's a pretty hilarious image. A pipe or a cup of tea would have
completed it. My kindergarten teacher told the counselor I couldn't
read, and once she left he tested me and found my sister had taught me
everything she learned. I suppose kindergarten teachers have evolved to
be that way.
>
> > It's interesting that talent and intuition should come up in different
> > places in the same thread (though less surprising that you would disavow
> > both).
>
> I am not certain that's exactly it: I tend to distrust any word that
> describes a process or event that is "semi-mystical" in nature, having vague
> parameters and effects.
Yes, I should have figured that out.
> I mean, I see people who strike me as talented, and
> I see examples of what I would call intuition, but they seem to me to be
> otherwise definable if the effort is made. In other words, I don't disparage
> the existence of the words (I see examples of both often), but only the
> connotations they have accrued on their march into abstraction. Henry
> Kissinger is "talented," Kenny G, etc.
Old Robin Williams comes to mind first- but then I've never done coke.
Hendrix comes to mind.
>
> But I remember reading that WJ Sidis wrote some papers on the
> > subconscious aspects of intelligence- forgive me if I haven't read them,
> > but I'm sure they're too deep for me- and I've experienced such things.
> > It's common, in fact. You think of a word or the perfect comeback or
> > whatever, after you stop trying.
>
> Yes, this happens again and again (you find an object once you've stopped
> looking for it) but - as I said - there is a more precise manner in which to
> speak of these things: neurologically. It is a fact that one tends to go
> over and over the same neural route when actively thinking, forming
> obsessive "ruts" in the cognitive process. Ceasing this "plowing" allows the
> brain to re-route. I wouldn't call it inuition, but an understandable event.
> I know the word "inuition" refers to this event, but - all in all -
> especially in the case of "female inuition" (which I don't think
> particularly exists as a unique thing) the word has taken on mythopoetical
> aspects that are grotesque and not much different from a belief in fairies.
There's also the tunnel vision ascribed to males, which could indeed be
related to the more agressive effects of the t-word; I certainly do it,
and it seems to prevent that intuitive leap. Though I get lost
constantly, why, even on this newsgroup. I'm even doing it now.
> .
> > As for difficulty in poetry, I like it to be a challenge; maybe that's a
> > mistake. Not everybody wants what you have- I like your poems, I can
> > say now, but I still like to include some logical argument, personally.
> > Which reminds me, I ought to be writing poetry.
> >
> I think my poetry (despite the obvious signs of incipient lunacy) is very
> logical. There is a reason I sometimes describe the process of writing a
> poem as akin to constructing a piece of furniture: one has to know where the
> bits go, no matter how baroque the individual pieces may seem. This is a
> logical process. The "logical argument" is buried in the construction, not
> so much in the phrases themselves, which are components so to speak. This is
> little different from nonsense poetry which has to adher to rather
> conservative processes to be recognized despite the surface craziness of
> word play and disjunction.
>
> dmh
I don't know. That would explain why people think your poems are hard
to write: that is assumed to be there, but it isn't obvious, so it must
be "deep"-ly worked in. I enjoyed your poem about the retired train, I
did indeed notice things that could or could not have been related: the
reference to Chinese-seeming things, later a reference to tiny
genitalia. I posted a response from paonline, it probably got lost.
One thing definitely more engaging in something written in your style is
that such references, in a more... in a poem unlike yours, would be
assumed intentional, but in a poem like that one it makes one uncertain
whether it was intended or just something the reader noticed on his (OR
HER) own. I think of it as mediation vs immediacy, which is kind of
what we were discussing. I think.
-chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:15:32 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
> <badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That's not giving them credit, they also discourage mathematical prodigy
> >in the early grades (SHOW YOUR WORK.),
>
>
> They had me for 12 years and I never did
>
> Not once
>
> But they never stopped trying
>
> Problem was, there *was* no work
>
> The problems were too obvious
You should join poeticgenius.com and straighten them out. Though I
can't guarantee it would be any fun.
They got me to show the work, but they never got me to do homework.
Which is why I never got me to college, and I work a dead-end job, and
not very well. A very, very common story. I suppose the one good thing
is that my job demands little thought, which should theoretically free
me to create things.
-chuckk
Joshua P. Hill
>But isn't there more involved than just a thwarting of expectations,
>however stimulating and generative that can be? Can't a more positive
>form of logic be conveyed through structure alone or so-called musical
>language, not as just an alternative to conventional verbal logic, but
>as an autonomous path to a different kind of understanding?
>
>I don't completely accept the dichotomy between music and language, Josh
>(I got your post only through Dale's response),
It may not have made it to Deja. I just unchecked "x-noarchive" so
hopefully you'll see this.
> as if language that
>doesn't make sense but sounds nice (or not) is a form of music, and
>would be better expressed that way. Even in music there is the abstract
>and representational distinction. Arnold Bax went to great lengths to
>convince others that certain of his symphonies were pure music, and not
>representations of personal experiences.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean they aren't at least approximate
dichotomies. Music has representational elements, and poetry musical
ones, but the representations in music tend to be vague, general, and
abstract, while it's difficult to keep specificity out of even
nonsense verse.
>Painting of course also has the abstract/representational distinction,
>and both are acceptable forms that have come to be understood, both
>generating in the creator and the viewer realms of experience that are
>for some strange reason necessary to us. To me the decisive factor is
>whether whatever is expressed conveys a realm of actual life experience,
>not necessarily something that has been previously experienced, but at
>least as something possible, or even that exists only in the work
>itself.
>
>In my case I can look into certain abstract paintings, or read a
>supposedly abstract poem, and actually feel processes coalescing inside
>me, drawing out submerged realms of experience and ordering inchoate
>memories/feelings/thoughts etc. Sometimes the sensation is, admittedly,
>as ephemeral as butterfly dust, but I'm nevertheless grateful for the
>opportunity and don't know how I'd live without it.
For me the question isn't whether abstract painting or poetry have
merit, but whether they represent the best possible deployment of an
artist's arsenal.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's a pretty hilarious image. A pipe or a cup of tea would have
>completed it. My kindergarten teacher told the counselor I couldn't
>read, and once she left he tested me and found my sister had taught me
>everything she learned. I suppose kindergarten teachers have evolved to
>be that way.
I got revenge on mine by peeing on my cot.
I think that a teacher that crticizes a child for being smart or ahead
of the rest of the class *ever* should be dismissed.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:15:32 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
>> <badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That's not giving them credit, they also discourage mathematical prodigy
>> >in the early grades (SHOW YOUR WORK.),
>>
>> Heh
>>
>> They had me for 12 years and I never did
>>
>> Not once
>>
>> But they never stopped trying
>>
>> Problem was, there *was* no work
>>
>> The problems were too obvious
>
>You should join poeticgenius.com and straighten them out. Though I
>can't guarantee it would be any fun.
>They got me to show the work, but they never got me to do homework.
>Which is why I never got me to college, and I work a dead-end job, and
>not very well. A very, very common story. I suppose the one good thing
>is that my job demands little thought, which should theoretically free
>me to create things.
I thought we'd almost convinced you to go back a while ago. I never
did my homework either, but I did get into college. It's far from
impossible.
It seems to me (very politically uncorrectly) that the 19th Century
had a far superior approach to the education of disaffected or
alienated kids, which is to say they switched their butts. Sound
hopelessly brutal? Sure, but what's worse--memories of a sore ass, or
a dead-end job?
Josh
JAS Carter
P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:52:31 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
><badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That's a pretty hilarious image. A pipe or a cup of tea would have
>>completed it. My kindergarten teacher told the counselor I couldn't
>>read, and once she left he tested me and found my sister had taught me
>>everything she learned. I suppose kindergarten teachers have evolved to
>>be that way.
>
>I got revenge on mine by peeing on my cot.
>
>I think that a teacher that crticizes a child for being smart or ahead
>of the rest of the class *ever* should be dismissed.
I was told that I "read too fast" and that I was "inconsiderate" for
not "letting the other children keep up."
Julie Carter
--
http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
eddie_...@my-deja.com
>
> > as if language that
> >doesn't make sense but sounds nice (or not) is a form of music, and
> >would be better expressed that way. Even in music there is the
abstract
> >and representational distinction. Arnold Bax went to great lengths to
> >convince others that certain of his symphonies were pure music, and
not
> >representations of personal experiences.
>
> Agreed, but that doesn't mean they aren't at least approximate
> dichotomies. Music has representational elements, and poetry musical
> ones, but the representations in music tend to be vague, general, and
> abstract, while it's difficult to keep specificity out of even
> nonsense verse.
I'm not sure about this, and I think you'd have to get inside a composer
to find out (where's Steve?), but I'd hazard a guess that many composers
don't consider their representations vague, general, and abstract.
Messiaen for instance was very specific in his representations of bird
song, subjective maybe, and not exact transcriptions, but very specific.
Of course in his case he was responding to a natural sound, so it may
not be a good example.
And now for an (apparent) tangent: What I'm interested in knowing is
where verbal language falls in the hierarchy of expression. Some people
think it's the highest, or rather the lowest, that is it's at the bottom
of all our experience, in fact some people say it creates our reality. I
think this is too weighted in verbal language's favor. Words happen to
be the most functional and pervasive form of inter-human communication,
so I think there's a natural prejudice in its favor. But I think that
painters, musicians, dancers, etc use their own media to express the
same things that writers express with words. I happen to also be curious
about exploring "painterly" or "musical" ways of expression in words.
>
> >Painting of course also has the abstract/representational
distinction,
> >and both are acceptable forms that have come to be understood, both
> >generating in the creator and the viewer realms of experience that
are
> >for some strange reason necessary to us. To me the decisive factor is
> >whether whatever is expressed conveys a realm of actual life
experience,
> >not necessarily something that has been previously experienced, but
at
> >least as something possible, or even that exists only in the work
> >itself.
> >
> >In my case I can look into certain abstract paintings, or read a
> >supposedly abstract poem, and actually feel processes coalescing
inside
> >me, drawing out submerged realms of experience and ordering inchoate
> >memories/feelings/thoughts etc. Sometimes the sensation is,
admittedly,
> >as ephemeral as butterfly dust, but I'm nevertheless grateful for the
> >opportunity and don't know how I'd live without it.
>
> For me the question isn't whether abstract painting or poetry have
> merit, but whether they represent the best possible deployment of an
> artist's arsenal.
Agreed. And sometimes it's painfully obvious when someone is using a
great talent in the following of a fad. There's a kind of honesty that
seems necessary, as if whatever's being said couldn't be said in any
other way.
sophie
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:01:41 -0400, in alt.arts.poetry.comments Joshua
>P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:52:31 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
>><badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>completed it. My kindergarten teacher told the counselor I couldn't
>>>read, and once she left he tested me and found my sister had taught me
>>>everything she learned. I suppose kindergarten teachers have evolved to
>>>be that way.
>>
>>
>>I think that a teacher that crticizes a child for being smart or ahead
>>of the rest of the class *ever* should be dismissed.
>
>I was told that I "read too fast" and that I was "inconsiderate" for
>not "letting the other children keep up."
I got put in the remedial reading class with the kids who couldn't read.
it was wonderful.
I got left alone in the corner with access to the entire junior school
library when I was in infants instead of reading idiot janet and john
books.
--
sophie
sophie
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:10:55 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
><badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
well,
they hit kids here till really very recently,
and usually what happened was that they ended up hating authority,
playing truant, and becoming manual labourers.
who are all better paid that me.
actually, that's the men.
the girls got really dreadful jobs for breadline wages.
I seem to be borderline possessed by andrea dworkin again.
--
sophie
Dale Houstman
<eddie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sfat2$lrm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Of course, but my statement is in response to a particular inquiry vis a vis
a contrast between music and poetry. It's a specific reply to a specific
inquiry, and not (in any sense) an "ars poetica" which I am not at all up to
at the moment. Poetry can obviously do all sorts of things, both immensely
abstract and concretely personal and everywhere inbetween. At any rate, what
I am talking about here is akin to the concept (minus the mystica hoohah) of
Zen koans: it's just true that derailing expectations can force one into
creative pathways. If one is always spoon fed easy logic, one becomes lazy.
This is as true for the writer as the reader. "Derailing" expectations isn't
the same as "thwarting" them: rather we might use the term "re-routing."
>
Dale Houstman
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:35:01 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Question phase II: is your chosen technique restraining your
> expressive possibilities? You're the best writer here--but then,
> Schoenberg was the most talented composer of his time.
>
Ouch! Thank you...
Well, it isn't as chosen as all that: I rather found it as a series of
attempts versus successes. But - even more importantly - it isn't only a one
way street in the least: I have made an effort to expand my expressive
possibilites with every poem. Thus the last few years I have - in fact -
been writing satirical poems, rather straight-forward poems, pure nonsense
poems, impressionistic poems, etc. Now I am involved with writing song
lyrics, which demands a different set of efforts. I don't feel at all
limited by what you term a "technique." The process is not at all indicative
of what can come out of it, due to the fact that I bring an emotional and
intellectual background of varying focus to each writing. One also has the
"standard" choices of line-length, rhyme, and so on to consider. There
seems - to me - to be no limit to what I could write given ther impulse. All
that holds me back is my tendency toward sleep.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Yes, and I wouldn't disagree IF I know what the person using the word
"talent" meant by it. In Jimi's case, his endless hours of practice
beginning at an early age didn't hurt. I am also certain that there are
neurological "potentialities" involved in music-making. And son. Robin
Williams - I think he pales beside his mentor Winters, and has fallen into
repeating easy patterns: he graps his crotch and shouts funny names entirely
too often for my enjoyment: this isn't a puritanical thing, just a natural
abhorrence of humor ruts. I don't even want to talk about his acting!
>
> >
> >
> > Yes, this happens again and again (you find an object once you've
stopped
> > looking for it) but - as I said - there is a more precise manner in
which to
> > speak of these things: neurologically. It is a fact that one tends to go
> > over and over the same neural route when actively thinking, forming
> > obsessive "ruts" in the cognitive process. Ceasing this "plowing" allows
the
> > brain to re-route. I wouldn't call it inuition, but an understandable
event.
> > I know the word "inuition" refers to this event, but - all in all -
> > especially in the case of "female inuition" (which I don't think
> > particularly exists as a unique thing) the word has taken on
mythopoetical
> > aspects that are grotesque and not much different from a belief in
fairies.
>
> There's also the tunnel vision ascribed to males, which could indeed be
> related to the more agressive effects of the t-word; I certainly do it,
> and it seems to prevent that intuitive leap. Though I get lost
> constantly, why, even on this newsgroup. I'm even doing it now.
This reminds me of how my familiar's family (mostly female) once started in
on that old "men don't like to ask directions" thing (sort of the
counterpose to "@#!% women drivers), and I asked them if they had ever
considered the fact that men LIKE to get lost. It's certainly true in my
case: when I go on road trips, I tend to navigate (on back roads) by a
general sense of where I'm going, and not by maps as often as most females
seem to like. It's just that in this way I end up in the most interesting
places, small towns with no hotels or restaurants for instance! I am sure
that in some cases this not asking for directions is simply a matter of male
pride, but it doesn't feel that way to me.
Precisely. It's a complex of impulses on my part: I am mainly trying to
please a lifetime of expectations and education in myself, while looking for
new sensations and conjunctions. But - it is the Rohrshach/koan thing also:
allowing enough referents to interbreed so as to give the reader his/her own
space. It may come as a surprise to many, but my poems make perfect "sense"
to me in the way they mimic our information-soaked environment. It's a much
a product of a lifetime of avid TV watching (with its quick jumps) as
anything else. And so on. I suppose I could talk about this all day and
night and not exhaust the subject. The listener's another story of course.
All I know is that referents form ripples, and those ripples (given their
ofttimes ambiguous form) attentunate and collapse incoming ripples. In this
way some of my poems - to me at least - seem to "throb" as in a fever. That
they also partake of a 60s sensibility (hallucinogeniuc, psychedelic and so
on) is probably central also.
Let's be kind and not mention the possibility of brain damage...
dmh
Dale Houstman
<eddie_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sfq4j$48t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> >
> > > as if language that
> > >doesn't make sense but sounds nice (or not) is a form of music, and
> > >would be better expressed that way. Even in music there is the
> abstract
> > >and representational distinction. Arnold Bax went to great lengths to
> > >convince others that certain of his symphonies were pure music, and
> not
> > >representations of personal experiences.
> >
> > dichotomies. Music has representational elements, and poetry musical
> > ones, but the representations in music tend to be vague, general, and
> > abstract, while it's difficult to keep specificity out of even
> > nonsense verse.
>
>
> I'm not sure about this, and I think you'd have to get inside a composer
> to find out (where's Steve?), but I'd hazard a guess that many composers
> don't consider their representations vague, general, and abstract.
> Messiaen for instance was very specific in his representations of bird
> song, subjective maybe, and not exact transcriptions, but very specific.
> Of course in his case he was responding to a natural sound, so it may
> not be a good example.
>
of my work, to me it is very concrete: I "see" the intersection of images
and events as a very real world. I think there are very few artists (except
maybe the "coolest" one: the ones dedicated to an arduous math) that create
abstractions in an abstracted fashion. Pollack was guided in part by the
very real ache of his muscles. My work appears abstract by the multi-plex of
its images and interweavings of connotations and "aleatory" material: but I
always work toward an idea of integrity.
dmh
Joshua P. Hill
>I'm not sure about this, and I think you'd have to get inside a composer
>to find out (where's Steve?), but I'd hazard a guess that many composers
>don't consider their representations vague, general, and abstract.
>Messiaen for instance was very specific in his representations of bird
>song, subjective maybe, and not exact transcriptions, but very specific.
>Of course in his case he was responding to a natural sound, so it may
>not be a good example.
That and similar exercises such as Gershwin's honking horns are pretty
much music's backwards equivalent of onomatopoeia. They can
nevertheless only go so far. Music cannot tell you what to apply at
the supermarket, or how to put a stereo together.
Consider this: one can pretty much "shake" the abstraction out of a
representational painting by holding it upside down. The
representation tends to go away, leaving the abstract formalisms.
If one could manage it, one could do much the same thing to a poem by
reading it backwards. One would then be left with essentially the
abstract musical element. Another thing one can do is remove a poem's
rhythm and play it on bongoes or something. In fact, that's one of the
ways one can tell if a poem's rhythms are any good; good rhythms are
satisfyingly playable, bad ones are not.
The basic difference? Vocabulary size, I think. The abstract component
is made up of only a few simple basic symbols, e.g., the 12 notes of
music or the geometric forms that underly painting. Thus the abstract
part is ideally suited to representing basic logical propositions
(technically, symmetries), while the representational part is ideally
suited to representing a wide range of partially described complex
phenomena.
>And now for an (apparent) tangent: What I'm interested in knowing is
>where verbal language falls in the hierarchy of expression. Some people
>think it's the highest, or rather the lowest, that is it's at the bottom
>of all our experience, in fact some people say it creates our reality. I
>think this is too weighted in verbal language's favor. Words happen to
>be the most functional and pervasive form of inter-human communication,
>so I think there's a natural prejudice in its favor. But I think that
>painters, musicians, dancers, etc use their own media to express the
>same things that writers express with words. I happen to also be curious
>about exploring "painterly" or "musical" ways of expression in words.
I don't know that I'd say that one form or another is superior. They
do different things.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
>"Joshua P. Hill" <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:vmcmuscvbjdc5tkd9...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:35:01 -0500, "Dale Houstman"
>> <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> Question phase II: is your chosen technique restraining your
>> expressive possibilities? You're the best writer here--but then,
>> Schoenberg was the most talented composer of his time.
>Ouch! Thank you...
LOL
>Well, it isn't as chosen as all that: I rather found it as a series of
>attempts versus successes. But - even more importantly - it isn't only a one
>way street in the least: I have made an effort to expand my expressive
>possibilites with every poem. Thus the last few years I have - in fact -
>been writing satirical poems, rather straight-forward poems, pure nonsense
>poems, impressionistic poems, etc. Now I am involved with writing song
>lyrics, which demands a different set of efforts. I don't feel at all
>limited by what you term a "technique." The process is not at all indicative
>of what can come out of it, due to the fact that I bring an emotional and
>intellectual background of varying focus to each writing. One also has the
>"standard" choices of line-length, rhyme, and so on to consider. There
>seems - to me - to be no limit to what I could write given ther impulse. All
>that holds me back is my tendency toward sleep.
The one thing I'm agreed on (with myself) is that you can do pretty
much anything you want.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:01:41 -0400, in alt.arts.poetry.comments Joshua
>P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:52:31 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
>><badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>That's a pretty hilarious image. A pipe or a cup of tea would have
>>>completed it. My kindergarten teacher told the counselor I couldn't
>>>read, and once she left he tested me and found my sister had taught me
>>>everything she learned. I suppose kindergarten teachers have evolved to
>>>be that way.
>>
>>I got revenge on mine by peeing on my cot.
>>
>>I think that a teacher that crticizes a child for being smart or ahead
>>of the rest of the class *ever* should be dismissed.
>
>I was told that I "read too fast" and that I was "inconsiderate" for
>not "letting the other children keep up."
Astounding.
In second grade, I insisted on doing all my arithmetic homework in
binary. My little protest against the astoundingly stupid simplicity
of the work.
I gather they were too dumbfounded to complain, though. Or maybe they
remembered the pee on the cot . . .
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<sop...@noskuffspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> said
>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:10:55 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
>><badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:15:32 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard
>>>> <badger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >That's not giving them credit, they also discourage mathematical prodigy
>>>> >in the early grades (SHOW YOUR WORK.),
>>>>
Well, there is that.
Josh
Redclay 6
its images and interweavings of connotations and "aleatory" material: but I
always work toward an idea of integrity.
dmh>>
all i know is, i bet yer sellin somethin.
Redclay 6
binary. My little protest against the astoundingly stupid simplicity
of the work.
I gather they were too dumbfounded to complain, though. Or maybe they
remembered the pee on the cot . . .
Josh>>
i started brangin my own books,
she made me sit in the front row,
i din mine, hell, the lite was better.
parently, one day, she had been screamin at me fer awhile, all them other kids
had lef off watchin dick an jane kick spot,
an i look up, shes 6 shades of red, an breathin hard.
she asts me "what are you doing?"
2-3-4........"read-in....", an im tryin to git along, choke down tother 10
thangs thet come to mine, i mean, here i am in readin class, readin, an the
teacher done rekkonze it. pity is too weak a word.
so we sit there lookin at each the other awhile, then words are x-change, an
she retches out an grabs the book.
i shrug, pull nother one out the desk, open it up.
she jerks thet one away, an i got to look at her an shake my hed.
i pull nother one out, an she jus has a meltdown. screamin an shakin, sayin i
done know what all, an she runs over to the window, tosses em out.
i tell her, "you know them are liberry books, done you?"
"OFFICE!OFFICE!OFFICE!"
well, the liberry was jus on the way, so i stop in, to get somethin to read. an
the libranarian, sweet lady thet she was, she want to know where all tother
ones are.
i tell her, i aint got em. "you don't have them?" nawp. "do you know where they
are?" teacher had em last. "did she know they were library books?" i tole her.
"so she will be bringing them back?" i doubt it. "what do you mean?" she thew
em outen the window. lawd, i mean to tell you, she hit thet door like the
strartin gate, an the hall at a ded run. i went browsin, you know, somethin to
read in the principrulls office, an i could hear em yellin from the refrance
section.
it dies down after awhile, an i make my way to the office, got me some dickens,
i thank.
so i walk in, an hes ahreddy creasin up his brow. "what did you do now, son?"
i was readin. "reading?"yep. "where was this?" readin class........"she sent
you in here for reading." yep. "what are you readin, son?" tale a 2
cities.looong silence. he tells me to go on back to class, an leans overn calls
my teacher in on the intracom. well, i kine of took the long way back, the long
way bein, leanin gainst the wall outside the principrulls office. lass thang i
hear, as shes shuttin the door,
"what's this about throwing library books out of windows?"
skool was a tryin time fer ol red.
Chuckk Hubbard
> > > I mean, I see people who strike me as talented, and
> > > I see examples of what I would call intuition, but they seem to me to be
> > > otherwise definable if the effort is made. In other words, I don't
> disparage
> > > the existence of the words (I see examples of both often), but only the
> > > connotations they have accrued on their march into abstraction. Henry
> > > Kissinger is "talented," Kenny G, etc.
> >
> > Old Robin Williams comes to mind first- but then I've never done coke.
> > Hendrix comes to mind.
>
> Yes, and I wouldn't disagree IF I know what the person using the word
> "talent" meant by it. In Jimi's case, his endless hours of practice
> beginning at an early age didn't hurt.
I'm sure it didn't help thousands. God, he played backwards- but I've
never done acid. Hey, it didn't help Pete Townsend. Oh wait that's
taste.
> I am also certain that there are
> neurological "potentialities" involved in music-making. And son.
oh shit
> Robin
> Williams - I think he pales beside his mentor Winters,
the one who played Mork's son? what the hell was that character's
name? I've seen that actor maybe 10 times in my life, but I can picture
him perfectly.
> and has fallen into
> repeating easy patterns: he graps his crotch and shouts funny names entirely
> too often for my enjoyment: this isn't a puritanical thing, just a natural
> abhorrence of humor ruts. I don't even want to talk about his acting!
"Old" Williams, as in dead Williams, not Grampy Williams. I personally
liked Steve Martin better (OLD Steve), though his shtick was slightly
more just wierdness. Just like I like Hendrix better than Steve Vai. I
wish Williams would decide he's finally convinced us he's clean so he
could go back to being dirty. Eddie Murphy, though, he's the only one
still standing. Well, Bob Hope would be... But Chaplin. Lucy couldn't
exist without Chaplin, Bugs Bunny couldn't exist without Chaplin (or
Groucho, though as much as I adore Groucho he was never on the screen,
just a tiny stage- Chaplin was on the screen), so no one could exist
without Chaplin. And just to keep it real, Walt Whitman. Walt Whitman
was a great poet.
Not-so-incidentally, silent film: what a medium. Totally artificial,
though I guess mimes and dumb-shows were around a while. It could go
where previously only words or images could go, but was limited to
images and images of words.
> > There's also the tunnel vision ascribed to males, which could indeed be
> > related to the more agressive effects of the t-word; I certainly do it,
> > and it seems to prevent that intuitive leap. Though I get lost
> > constantly, why, even on this newsgroup. I'm even doing it now.
>
> This reminds me of how my familiar's family (mostly female) once started in
> on that old "men don't like to ask directions" thing (sort of the
> counterpose to "@#!% women drivers), and I asked them if they had ever
> considered the fact that men LIKE to get lost. It's certainly true in my
> case: when I go on road trips, I tend to navigate (on back roads) by a
> general sense of where I'm going, and not by maps as often as most females
> seem to like. It's just that in this way I end up in the most interesting
> places, small towns with no hotels or restaurants for instance! I am sure
> that in some cases this not asking for directions is simply a matter of male
> pride, but it doesn't feel that way to me.
Perhaps men are the only ones who would be remotely thinking of giving
someone wrong directions. I do love to get lost, usually at night. I
found TMI that way, quite a nice surprise. If you ever did find
yourself in PA (goes for all of you), the best place to get lost at
night is Gettysburg; the only place that has consistently given me the
creeps for years. And John Updike.
> > I don't know. That would explain why people think your poems are hard
> > to write: that is assumed to be there, but it isn't obvious, so it must
> > be "deep"-ly worked in. I enjoyed your poem about the retired train, I
> > did indeed notice things that could or could not have been related: the
> > reference to Chinese-seeming things, later a reference to tiny
> > genitalia. I posted a response from paonline, it probably got lost.
> > One thing definitely more engaging in something written in your style is
> > that such references, in a more... in a poem unlike yours, would be
> > assumed intentional, but in a poem like that one it makes one uncertain
> > whether it was intended or just something the reader noticed on his (OR
> > HER) own. I think of it as mediation vs immediacy, which is kind of
> > what we were discussing. I think.
> >
> Precisely. It's a complex of impulses on my part: I am mainly trying to
> please a lifetime of expectations and education in myself, while looking for
> new sensations and conjunctions. But - it is the Rohrshach/koan thing also:
> allowing enough referents to interbreed so as to give the reader his/her own
> space. It may come as a surprise to many, but my poems make perfect "sense"
> to me in the way they mimic our information-soaked environment. It's a much
> a product of a lifetime of avid TV watching (with its quick jumps) as
> anything else. And so on. I suppose I could talk about this all day and
> night and not exhaust the subject. The listener's another story of course.
Hell I bet you could write a book about it.
I get it though, that's what drew me to the infamous Creeley poem, only
his was, in my opinion, about as noncommittal as they get.
>
> All I know is that referents form ripples, and those ripples (given their
> ofttimes ambiguous form) attentunate and collapse incoming ripples. In this
> way some of my poems - to me at least - seem to "throb" as in a fever. That
> they also partake of a 60s sensibility (hallucinogeniuc, psychedelic and so
> on) is probably central also.
And this isn't difficult?
>
> Let's be kind and not mention the possibility of brain damage...
>
> dmh
ditto TMI
chuckk