Points unclear
Dr Zen
> I'm not responsible for your being unable to understand what I wrote.
> I wasn't being in the least bit mean.
: Perhaps I didn't understand what you wrote.
No, you didn't.
: Perhaps you weren't being
mean.
No, I wasn't.
: I would like to believe that, but your post certainly didn't
come across as kind ... and I'm not responsible for your point being
unclear.
Yes, you are.
: Just a bit of clarification, for the record. You keep talking about
how I'm not a "real" writer because I write about places I haven't
visited.
No, I don't. I didn't say you weren't a "real" writer. I said you
weren't a "writer" at all.
: The "real" part of that is bullshit, as you know, because of
course I'm a writer, as you also know.
No, you're not.
: But the truth is, I rarely write books about places. In fact, the
only
book I've written about places was on the Aswan High Dam. No, I didn't
visit Egypt. I haven't written a book on the Great Barrier Reef yet
but it was assigned to me. And yes, I will write it based on research
and personal interviews. Visiting Australia would be heavenly but not
affordable. Make of that what you will.
I make of it that you are not a writer but a neo-writer. You will
write a book about the books you read about the Barrier Reef.
:I wrote a book about the Great Depression, for which I did extensive
research and also interviewed people who survived some very hard
times. One of them was my father.
Extensive research? You mean, you read some books?
:I wrote a book about the Internet, for which I did extensive research
and also interviwed about six or seven people.
You simply aren't getting the point.
:I wrote two books on global warming, for which I did extensive
research and also interviewed several notable scientists.
:I have written ten career-related books, and for each of them I
interviewed professionals working in the various fields.
:As for the three Giants of Science books I wrote, they were all about
historical figures who all happen to be dead now so my choices were
(A) use an Ouija board or (B) try to schedule a séance or (C) do some
serious digging in historical research. I chose option C.
You read some books.
Then you wrote a book about the books you read.
:It's probably silly for me to let your stinging words bother me, but
they do.
Yes, it is.
: Mainly I cannot understand why you continue to pursue this.
You're the example I use, because I'm familiar with your work. Also,
you're not "on the other side", so there's no reason to believe I'm
not sincere.
:Why do you care what I write about and how I go about doing it?
I care about writing. I care about what art is and what it isn't. Why?
Because I am a modernist. I believe art should have value. I believe
in celebrating what most cannot do, not what anybody could do given
the chance.
: What
does it matter to you?
The very fact you cannot understand that is what defines you wholly as
what I claim you are!
: Rhetorical questions, I realize, but I still wonder them.
No, you don't. You're just expressing a vague sense of hurt. You want
people to tell you how wonderful you are, your choices are, your life
is. You are wonderful, your choices are wonderful, your life is. And
in this world, you are a writer. But so is everybody and anybody, and
that's what I care about.
Zen
Arleen
news:5e7da04d.03083...@posting.google.com...
then what do you call the authors of the vast supply of history books and
biographies if not writers? do you not agree that there are those with the
ability to write about times and places they've never seen because we
haven't invented a time machine yet, and one can feel, through their
writings, that one is actually there? is that not what separates writer from
scribe? or is that what you're talking about? that an author who has the
ability to transcend time and pull the reader into the work, even if he's
only writing about what he has only read, can claim the title writer?
it doesn't sound like that's what you mean, though. it sounds like anyone
who writes soemthing based on what he has read cannot possibly be a
writer-not until he has a personal experience of what he's writing about. i
just don't get that. some people's imaginations are phenomenal, and they
have no need for direct personal experience in order to capture exactly what
someone who had the experience would if they could write well.
what about imaginary stories with no possibility for firsthand knowledge
other than what comes to them through dreams and imagination? the surreal
and sublime. that would be art, yes?
i don't see how you can limit writing to "this, but not that." there is
melding of research, imagination, and when possible or warranted,
experience.
can you give examples of writing that you consider art, and examples that
most people consider writing but that you consider just words on paper?
aj
PJ
<...>
> No, you don't. You're just expressing a vague sense of hurt. You want
> people to tell you how wonderful you are, your choices are, your life
> is. You are wonderful, your choices are wonderful, your life is. And
> in this world, you are a writer.
I'm not asking anyone to tell me I'm wonderful, Zen, or my choices or my
life. Good God, what a pathetic liar you are. I responded to your
accusatory post, that's all. No more, no less. You know that, but I
don't expect you to admit it.
No points are unclear. You have clearly shown your ugliness. I suppose
it's been there, in plain sight, all along, but being one of those simps
who always believes there's good in everyone, I guess I thought that you
were basically good too.
No matter. It isn't the first time--nor the last--that I've been proven
to be way off base.
PJ
Robert McClelland
"Arleen" <amj...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:biu46b$d0ark$1...@ID-39564.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> then what do you call the authors of the vast supply of history books and
> biographies if not writers?
I'd call most of them plagiarists. If I were to write a book about Isaac
Newton and didn't add any new material to it but instead just repackaged
what was already written in other books, I would be guilty of stealing the
work of those other authors. The fact that this is an acceptable practice in
the world of writing is mind boggling. If I were to take a can of Coca-Cola
and repackage the content in a new can, the company would be all over me
with lawsuits and they would win. So why should it be any different when a
writer takes the content of other books and repackages it in a new book?
William Penrose
>Dr Zen wrote:
>
>> ... I responded to your
>accusatory post, that's all.
And that's your problem. Responding to this snobbish 'I'm a *real*
writer and you're not' grants him an undeserved credibility.
Somebody is paying you for your stuff who has more money than Zen.
The Golden Rule: You don't have to justify yourself except to the one
with the gold.
Bill Penrose
ActiveVerb
(1) Comments from people who are paying you.
(2) Comments that resonate with you and which you think will help you improve
your work.
An awful lot of crticism and naysayer can, and should be, ignored, no matter
who it comes from.
Dr Zen
> > people to tell you how wonderful you are, your choices are, your life
> > is. You are wonderful, your choices are wonderful, your life is. And
> > in this world, you are a writer. But so is everybody and anybody, and
> > that's what I care about.
> >
>
> then what do you call the authors of the vast supply of history books and
> biographies if not writers?
It depends. That, I think, is the point both you and PJ are missing. I
agree largely with Robert's reply to you. Most are repackagers. Most
of our culture, these days, is the same old thing in shinier paper.
> do you not agree that there are those with the
> ability to write about times and places they've never seen because we
> haven't invented a time machine yet, and one can feel, through their
> writings, that one is actually there?
Yes.
> is that not what separates writer from
> scribe?
No.
> or is that what you're talking about?
No.
> that an author who has the
> ability to transcend time and pull the reader into the work, even if he's
> only writing about what he has only read, can claim the title writer?
>
No. All I'm saying is that a repackager is a different thing to what
I, a modernist at heart, would understand by "writer".
> it doesn't sound like that's what you mean, though. it sounds like anyone
> who writes soemthing based on what he has read cannot possibly be a
> writer-not until he has a personal experience of what he's writing about.
That's not quite what I said.
> i
> just don't get that. some people's imaginations are phenomenal, and they
> have no need for direct personal experience in order to capture exactly what
> someone who had the experience would if they could write well.
>
Indeed that's true. But what is an imagination, Arleen? Is it
something fresh? Or is it like a machine that threshes through images,
cuts and reshapes them? Harry Potter is a fine example of this. The
imagination of the writer is hailed, but any well read enough can see
the bits and pieces it's hewn from, and the seams joining them.
> what about imaginary stories with no possibility for firsthand knowledge
> other than what comes to them through dreams and imagination? the surreal
> and sublime. that would be art, yes?
>
In the modernist sense, what counts is expression, Arleen. And, beyond
all, that it is *your* dream that you express.
> i don't see how you can limit writing to "this, but not that."
I don't see how I did.
> there is
> melding of research, imagination, and when possible or warranted,
> experience.
>
I don't see how I suggested there wasn't.
> can you give examples of writing that you consider art, and examples that
> most people consider writing but that you consider just words on paper?
Yes, I can, but I'm not willing to discuss the merits of particular
books in this context.
Zen
Dr Zen
> Dr Zen wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > No, you don't. You're just expressing a vague sense of hurt. You want
> > people to tell you how wonderful you are, your choices are, your life
> > is. You are wonderful, your choices are wonderful, your life is. And
> > in this world, you are a writer.
>
> I'm not asking anyone to tell me I'm wonderful, Zen, or my choices or my
> life.
Yes, you are, and when you don't get what you want, you turn nasty.
How predictable and dishonest you are!
> Good God, what a pathetic liar you are. I responded to your
> accusatory post, that's all. No more, no less. You know that, but I
> don't expect you to admit it.
>
It wasn't in the least accusatory. What on earth do you think you're
being "accused" of?
> No points are unclear. You have clearly shown your ugliness. I suppose
> it's been there, in plain sight, all along, but being one of those simps
> who always believes there's good in everyone, I guess I thought that you
> were basically good too.
>
It's the same old story with you, PJ. If you're told how wonderful you
are, you love the teller. If you're not, you don't. You seek to deny
your friends the ability to think about you and what you do. If they
don't frame you in the light you wish to be framed in, this is the
result.
> No matter. It isn't the first time--nor the last--that I've been proven
> to be way off base.
>
I'm not accusing you of anything, but it sure sounds to me like you're
accusing yourself.
Zen
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
>
>It depends. That, I think, is the point both you and PJ are missing. I
>agree largely with Robert's reply to you. Most are repackagers. Most
>of our culture, these days, is the same old thing in shinier paper.
>
But even fiction is "the same old thing in shinier paper". 'Nothing
new under the sun', innit? And I don't just mean modern fiction,
either. We're all just trying to say something a little differently,
and hopefully more invitingly, then the person who said it before us.
Be that in fiction, poetry or non-fiction, it makes little difference.
(Even your post, and mine, are just repackaged versions of posts that
came before them.)
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Arleen
> "Arleen" <amj...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:<biu46b$d0ark$1...@ID-39564.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> > can you give examples of writing that you consider art, and examples
that
> > most people consider writing but that you consider just words on paper?
>
> Yes, I can, but I'm not willing to discuss the merits of particular
> books in this context.
>
well, darn. i'm just trying to gain a better understanding of where you're
coming from and thought that examples would help me.
oh, well.
aj
Arleen
message news:3s46lvckmf2ivaudv...@4ax.com...
> On 1 Sep 2003 01:31:14 -0700, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>
> >
> >It depends. That, I think, is the point both you and PJ are missing. I
> >agree largely with Robert's reply to you. Most are repackagers. Most
> >of our culture, these days, is the same old thing in shinier paper.
> >
> But even fiction is "the same old thing in shinier paper". 'Nothing
> new under the sun', innit? And I don't just mean modern fiction,
> either. We're all just trying to say something a little differently,
> and hopefully more invitingly, then the person who said it before us.
> Be that in fiction, poetry or non-fiction, it makes little difference.
>
this is what i was thinking. the nothing new under the sun bit. everything
gets recycled and reformed and perhaps new insight or greater understanding
occurs because of the ability of the writer to express himself. also, having
something else to build upon is necessary to take things to another level.
i have a friend who is currently taking a creative writing class. she hates
breaking down and analyzing what she writes. she disagrees with her teacher
that writing isn't going out into the woods and fields and feeling and
writing whatever comes to mind. "yes, it is," she says. that's what writing
is. writing means art for her. the breaking apart and determining markets
and all of that turns it into a craft, leaving artistry behind. i think it's
just semantics, because once you're in the zone doing it, anything can be
art, in my opinion.
there's this place that i enter when i'm really into a project. it always
happens when i'm using my hands to make something, but not everything i make
with my hands brings me there. i've experienced it when recaning chairs, but
not when sewing. while refinishing furniture, but not decorating cakes.
and yet, i can see people who love to sew and decorate cakes getting into
that place. not everyone who sees the finished product will agree. it's just
a recaned chair, or newly refurbished piece of furniture, or a pair of
pants, or a cake. no art there. just craft. but because i have also painted,
expressing what's in my head or simply enjoying the play of the colors while
painting something familiar, i know that place, and it's the same. the place
where art emerges. i don't think that one can definitively say "this is art
and that is not." it depends upon the one who created, and the person
receiving the creation. not all will agree on the determination.
while writing this, thinking about why one thing brings about that sense of
creation and another doesn't, i discovered that it takes a certain
sensuality to bring that about for me. keeping the cane wet, sponging the
strands, the in and out of the weave, the way it feels as you pull the cane
through, it's like music. the same with refinishing. caressing the wood.
sanding, wiping, staining, wiping and finally seeing it glow.
no matter what anyone else may think, that's what i call art, and i won't
dispute with someone else who feels those same feelings while embarking upon
a favorite pasttime of theirs-even if it's the solving of a mathematical
equation. but i do like trying to understand what others believe to be art
and how they arrive at their conclusions.
another way to explain it would be to compare two paintings of splashed
paint. one done by someone who simply splashed the paint without thought. he
took whatever color was next in line in the cans at his feet and splashed
them. he didn't care. he didn't feel. it was just an exercise in splashing.
but the other person reveled in the colors as he splashed. he took time to
decide which color came next and where he wanted to splash it. he considered
what he knew of colors and placed purple against yellow to make them pop, he
wanted a cool feeling here, so used blues and greens, but wanted warm there
and used reds and oranges. and he determined whether or not the splash was
strong or soft. it mattered to him. maybe it became a sort of dance as he
splashed. (i can see pj doing this with words.)
to anyone viewing those paintings later, if rembrandt were the artistic
ideal, these paintings would fall short. they're not art. every generation,
every person, has his own standard for art. mine is the standard of how one
feels while doing it. even if it's frustrating, if one finds oneself at some
point in that zone where time stops, it became art.
isn't there a difference in music this way? there are those who can be
technically accurate, and pleasant to listen to, but then there are those
who put their souls into what they play. they are all musicians, but they
may not all be artists.
zen is using the term writer synonomously with artist-an artist who uses
writing to create/express. i prefer all who write are writers, but not all
are artists. semantics. for him, pj's writing is not art, therefore not
writing. fine. but only pj knows what she's feeling as she writes, and she's
the only one who matters when it comes to her writing. all the rest is
sophistry.
including my own reasonings. <g>
aj
Dr Zen
>
> >
> >It depends. That, I think, is the point both you and PJ are missing. I
> >agree largely with Robert's reply to you. Most are repackagers. Most
> >of our culture, these days, is the same old thing in shinier paper.
> >
> But even fiction is "the same old thing in shinier paper".
I'm not claiming any primacy for fiction
> 'Nothing
> new under the sun', innit?
Is it?
> And I don't just mean modern fiction,
> either. We're all just trying to say something a little differently
Are we?
> and hopefully more invitingly, then the person who said it before us.
> Be that in fiction, poetry or non-fiction, it makes little difference.
I couldn't disagree more.
> (Even your post, and mine, are just repackaged versions of posts that
> came before them.)
Hardly.
Zen
Dr Zen
> Yup, in writing, only two types of criticism matter:
>
> (1) Comments from people who are paying you.
Boohoo.
> (2) Comments that resonate with you and which you think will help you improve
> your work.
"It's only worth listening when you hear things you like."
>
> An awful lot of crticism and naysayer can, and should be, ignored, no matter
> who it comes from.
>
Fuck sake. For shame, really.
Zen
Dr Zen
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:40:01 GMT, PJ <autho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Dr Zen wrote:
> >
> >> ... I responded to your
> >accusatory post, that's all.
>
> And that's your problem. Responding to this snobbish 'I'm a *real*
> writer and you're not' grants him an undeserved credibility.
>
You are such a tit, Bill. I am talking about aspiration, vision, and
you can only make it about:
> Somebody is paying you for your stuff who has more money than Zen.
>
You have no idea how much money I have. I could have millions. What I
am talking about has absolutely fuck all to do with money.
> The Golden Rule: You don't have to justify yourself except to the one
> with the gold.
And this guy pretends he's a liberal! Fuck sake. You want to try
thinking that one through and see where it's getting you.
Zen
Dr Zen
> "Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady" <7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
> message news:3s46lvckmf2ivaudv...@4ax.com...
> > On 1 Sep 2003 01:31:14 -0700, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >It depends. That, I think, is the point both you and PJ are missing. I
> > >agree largely with Robert's reply to you. Most are repackagers. Most
> > >of our culture, these days, is the same old thing in shinier paper.
> > >
> > But even fiction is "the same old thing in shinier paper". 'Nothing
> > new under the sun', innit? And I don't just mean modern fiction,
> > either. We're all just trying to say something a little differently,
> > and hopefully more invitingly, then the person who said it before us.
> > Be that in fiction, poetry or non-fiction, it makes little difference.
> >
>
> this is what i was thinking. the nothing new under the sun bit.
You see, I believe every day is new, Arleen. I believe that what I do
has a freshness *for me* if I am open to it. Of course, that view is
not fashionable these days, but I don't see why I should surrender it
just because money and its pursuit is these days our god.
> everything
> gets recycled and reformed and perhaps new insight or greater understanding
> occurs because of the ability of the writer to express himself.
Perhaps.
> also, having
> something else to build upon is necessary to take things to another level.
>
Is it?
> i have a friend who is currently taking a creative writing class. she hates
> breaking down and analyzing what she writes. she disagrees with her teacher
> that writing isn't going out into the woods and fields and feeling and
> writing whatever comes to mind. "yes, it is," she says. that's what writing
> is. writing means art for her. the breaking apart and determining markets
> and all of that turns it into a craft, leaving artistry behind. i think it's
> just semantics, because once you're in the zone doing it, anything can be
> art, in my opinion.
>
Can it? If anything can be art, what does art mean?
For me, art is to things what language is to sound. Not all sounds are
language.
> there's this place that i enter when i'm really into a project. it always
> happens when i'm using my hands to make something, but not everything i make
> with my hands brings me there. i've experienced it when recaning chairs, but
> not when sewing. while refinishing furniture, but not decorating cakes.
>
> and yet, i can see people who love to sew and decorate cakes getting into
> that place.
I'm not distinguishing one type of endeavour from another.
Definitively not. I accept that PJ can have skill as a writer - I
actually don't know whether she does, since I haven't read her books,
and it's moot whether her comic writing shows skill - what I am
talking about is not about who does or doesn't exhibit skills.
>not everyone who sees the finished product will agree. it's just
> a recaned chair, or newly refurbished piece of furniture, or a pair of
> pants, or a cake. no art there. just craft. but because i have also painted,
> expressing what's in my head or simply enjoying the play of the colors while
> painting something familiar, i know that place, and it's the same. the place
> where art emerges. i don't think that one can definitively say "this is art
> and that is not."
No, probably one cannot. But that doesn't mean you can't want it to be
possible.
> it depends upon the one who created, and the person
> receiving the creation. not all will agree on the determination.
>
You need, though, to take care to distinguish "art" from "artistry".
This distinction has gone by the wayside, but I think it's useful.
> while writing this, thinking about why one thing brings about that sense of
> creation and another doesn't, i discovered that it takes a certain
> sensuality to bring that about for me. keeping the cane wet, sponging the
> strands, the in and out of the weave, the way it feels as you pull the cane
> through, it's like music. the same with refinishing. caressing the wood.
> sanding, wiping, staining, wiping and finally seeing it glow.
Erm.
> no matter what anyone else may think, that's what i call art, and i won't
> dispute with someone else who feels those same feelings while embarking upon
> a favorite pasttime of theirs-even if it's the solving of a mathematical
> equation.
I think you end up making the word meaningless.
> but i do like trying to understand what others believe to be art
> and how they arrive at their conclusions.
>
Canaletto, yes: Hirst, no. I can hear the dog barking: it's just a
shark in a tank.
> another way to explain it would be to compare two paintings of splashed
> paint. one done by someone who simply splashed the paint without thought. he
> took whatever color was next in line in the cans at his feet and splashed
> them. he didn't care. he didn't feel. it was just an exercise in splashing.
>
> but the other person reveled in the colors as he splashed. he took time to
> decide which color came next and where he wanted to splash it. he considered
> what he knew of colors and placed purple against yellow to make them pop, he
> wanted a cool feeling here, so used blues and greens, but wanted warm there
> and used reds and oranges. and he determined whether or not the splash was
> strong or soft. it mattered to him. maybe it became a sort of dance as he
> splashed. (i can see pj doing this with words.)
You're being dishonest, Arleen. You can't see any such thing.
> to anyone viewing those paintings later, if rembrandt were the artistic
> ideal, these paintings would fall short.
You are mistaking artistry for art. I am not saying anything about the
amount of craft that is part of the work.
> they're not art. every generation,
> every person, has his own standard for art. mine is the standard of how one
> feels while doing it. even if it's frustrating, if one finds oneself at some
> point in that zone where time stops, it became art.
That's fine for you. I don't have the least problem with your defining
it in any way you choose.
> isn't there a difference in music this way? there are those who can be
> technically accurate, and pleasant to listen to, but then there are those
> who put their souls into what they play. they are all musicians, but they
> may not all be artists.
You are mistaking, yet again, artistry for art. I am not suggesting
that there is any need for great artistry to make art.
> zen is using the term writer synonomously with artist
Am I?
> -an artist who uses
> writing to create/express.
Express, Arleen, is a big, baggy word.
> i prefer all who write are writers, but not all
> are artists.
Then you make yet another word mean nothing. Everyone writes.
Postmodernism concerns itself largely with robbing words of meaning.
This is what it does. It says "it's nothing but elitism to suggest one
person is a writer and the next is not". But it has no answer to the
question "if all are writers, isn't writer just a synonym for person".
> semantics.
It's a little bit deeper than that. I'm not quibbling with you over
the meaning of a word. I'm saying your meaning has to be wrong.
> for him, pj's writing is not art, therefore not
> writing.
No, for me, PJ's writing is not writing, therefore not writing. How I
believe writing must be defined, if it is to mean anything at all.
> fine. but only pj knows what she's feeling as she writes, and she's
> the only one who matters when it comes to her writing.
See, I'll make a modernist of you yet.
> all the rest is
> sophistry.
>
Unfortunately, postmodernist thought cannot be dismissed as
"sophistry".
> including my own reasonings. <g>
Your, erm, reasoning boils down to simply saying "it's art if the
artist says so". But to me, to accept that is to open the door to the
belief that there is no good or bad in the world, and it really is
just and equitable that money and force should between them rule the
world.
Zen
Joshua P. Hill
>"Arleen" <amj...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:<biu46b$d0ark$1...@ID-39564.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> > No, you don't. You're just expressing a vague sense of hurt. You want
>> > people to tell you how wonderful you are, your choices are, your life
>> > is. You are wonderful, your choices are wonderful, your life is. And
>> > in this world, you are a writer. But so is everybody and anybody, and
>> > that's what I care about.
>> >
>>
>> then what do you call the authors of the vast supply of history books and
>> biographies if not writers?
>
>It depends. That, I think, is the point both you and PJ are missing. I
>agree largely with Robert's reply to you. Most are repackagers. Most
>of our culture, these days, is the same old thing in shinier paper.
I don't know that that's any truer of today's books than yesterday's.
Voice is rarer than craft, the ratio of scholiast to genius is
astronomically high. But, really, both are necessary: there are far
more small discoveries to be made than big ones, and, in sum, they may
be even more important.
Josh
Keith Leng
> I'm not distinguishing one type of endeavour from another.
> Definitively not. I accept that PJ can have skill as a writer - I
> actually don't know whether she does, since I haven't read her books,
> and it's moot whether her comic writing shows skill - what I am
> talking about is not about who does or doesn't exhibit skills.
How do you form an opinion about a writer without reading her books? The
best way to experience the essence of the Great Barrier Reef is to dive it.
The only way to know if a particular books succeeds in evoking the essence
of the Great Barrier Reef is to read it.
From your original post:
>Flaubert, who
> refused to write about sensations he had never had (so that, when he
> wanted to write about a night in an onion field, he had to spend a
> night in an onion field), is something of a modernist god.
So he would want to have a bit of a munch on PJ's onions before writing
about whether or not they are soul-food.
> Part of my struggle
> in writing is not to write about representations, not to fall back on
> our shared understanding, but to write about the things themselves.
So why not write about PJ's books themselves, rather than relying on a
shared understanding of Modernism, Postmodernism etc?
Shakespeare, beginning his description of Cleopatra (who he had never met)
on the Nile (which he had never seen) based upon his reading of Plutarch
(who was dead):
The barge she sat in, like a burnish'd throne,
Burn'd on the water: the poop was beaten gold;
Purple the sails, and so perfumed that
The winds were love-sick with them; the oars were silver,
Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made
The water which they beat to follow faster,
As amorous of their strokes.
Was he a writer?
--
Keith
PJ
> It's the same old story with you, PJ. If you're told how wonderful you
> are, you love the teller. If you're not, you don't. You seek to deny
> your friends the ability to think about you and what you do. If they
> don't frame you in the light you wish to be framed in, this is the
> result.
Huh? I'm denying my *friends* the ability to think about me and what I
do ... that seems like a bit of a stretch Zen. I'm not sure who you're
referring to with the above-referenced *they*. Unless I'm mistaken,
there isn't anyone else framing me in an unflattering light except you.
And please remember, it was your comment:
> it occurred to me why I don't
> like the idea of PJ Parks.
that started the whole thing. Could you perhaps admit that saying you
don't like the *idea* of someone carries a derogatory tone?
Anyway, I cannot titter with you today. My birthday is over and much to
my chagrin, I must get back to work.
PJ
---
Dr Zen
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I'm not distinguishing one type of endeavour from another.
> > Definitively not. I accept that PJ can have skill as a writer - I
> > actually don't know whether she does, since I haven't read her books,
> > and it's moot whether her comic writing shows skill - what I am
> > talking about is not about who does or doesn't exhibit skills.
>
> How do you form an opinion about a writer without reading her books?
Can you just not read, Keith? I have not formed an opinion about PJ
beyond the opinion I've stated.
> The
> best way to experience the essence of the Great Barrier Reef is to dive it.
Hello?
> The only way to know if a particular books succeeds in evoking the essence
> of the Great Barrier Reef is to read it.
Hello? Hello? Anyone home?
> From your original post:
>
> >Flaubert, who
> > refused to write about sensations he had never had (so that, when he
> > wanted to write about a night in an onion field, he had to spend a
> > night in an onion field), is something of a modernist god.
>
> So he would want to have a bit of a munch on PJ's onions before writing
> about whether or not they are soul-food.
You are so far wide of the point, it couldn't hear you if you shouted.
> > Part of my struggle
> > in writing is not to write about representations, not to fall back on
> > our shared understanding, but to write about the things themselves.
>
> So why not write about PJ's books themselves, rather than relying on a
> shared understanding of Modernism, Postmodernism etc?
Because I am only writing about those aspects of PJ's books that are
pertinent. I have no opinion whatsoever about the quality of her
writing.
> Shakespeare, beginning his description of Cleopatra (who he had never met)
> on the Nile (which he had never seen) based upon his reading of Plutarch
> (who was dead):
>
> The barge she sat in, like a burnish'd throne,
> Burn'd on the water: the poop was beaten gold;
> Purple the sails, and so perfumed that
> The winds were love-sick with them; the oars were silver,
> Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made
> The water which they beat to follow faster,
> As amorous of their strokes.
>
>
> Was he a writer?
Yes, indeed he was, and he recycled plots, imagery, sometimes even
plagiarised. I haven't at any point said that writers must be original
in everything that they do.
All I can do with cavils like yours, Keith, is repeat what I've
already said. I can't speak to the message you *think* I'm conveying.
Zen
William Penrose
>
> You are such a tit, Bill. I am talking about aspiration, vision, and
> you can only make it about:
Aspiration? Vision?
How much are they by the kilo?
Bill Penrose
(aspiration and vision don't cut through the fog of gratuitous abuse)
Keith Leng
news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "Keith Leng" <ke...@REMOVEabcTHISkeith-leng.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bj1rvg$ef5gj$1...@ID-149768.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I'm not distinguishing one type of endeavour from another.
> > > Definitively not. I accept that PJ can have skill as a writer - I
> > > actually don't know whether she does, since I haven't read her books,
> > > and it's moot whether her comic writing shows skill - what I am
> > > talking about is not about who does or doesn't exhibit skills.
> >
> > How do you form an opinion about a writer without reading her books?
>
> Can you just not read, Keith? I have not formed an opinion about PJ
> beyond the opinion I've stated.
I think you know that I was referring to your opinion, stated in your
original post, that "PJ is not a writer". I don't understand how you can
arrive at that conclusion without reading her work.
> All I can do with cavils like yours, Keith, is repeat what I've
> already said. I can't speak to the message you *think* I'm conveying.
So be it. I'll remain off-message.
--
Keith
Joshua P. Hill
<ke...@REMOVEabcTHISkeith-leng.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
>> "Keith Leng" <ke...@REMOVEabcTHISkeith-leng.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<bj1rvg$ef5gj$1...@ID-149768.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> > "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> > > I'm not distinguishing one type of endeavour from another.
>> > > Definitively not. I accept that PJ can have skill as a writer - I
>> > > actually don't know whether she does, since I haven't read her books,
>> > > and it's moot whether her comic writing shows skill - what I am
>> > > talking about is not about who does or doesn't exhibit skills.
>> >
>> > How do you form an opinion about a writer without reading her books?
>>
>> Can you just not read, Keith? I have not formed an opinion about PJ
>> beyond the opinion I've stated.
>
>I think you know that I was referring to your opinion, stated in your
>original post, that "PJ is not a writer". I don't understand how you can
>arrive at that conclusion without reading her work.
Why, it's a great deal easier to form an opinion without having read
someone's work, unless you're talking about Patty Butler, in which
case you'll form the opinion either way. I personally make it a
practice never to read a writer's work before I excoriate it, since I
don't want to be prejudiced in my assessment. That's why I strongly
support the trend to obscure poetry journals with more contributors
than readers. The great harm in a poem is apt to befall the reader,
while the poet almost inevitably benefits from having rid himself of
the thing, like a fellow who has passed a tapeworm. Such atrocities
ought to be kept where they belong, that is, an editor's spare time.
Josh
Dr Zen
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > "Keith Leng" <ke...@REMOVEabcTHISkeith-leng.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<bj1rvg$ef5gj$1...@ID-149768.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > I'm not distinguishing one type of endeavour from another.
> > > > Definitively not. I accept that PJ can have skill as a writer - I
> > > > actually don't know whether she does, since I haven't read her books,
> > > > and it's moot whether her comic writing shows skill - what I am
> > > > talking about is not about who does or doesn't exhibit skills.
> > >
> > > How do you form an opinion about a writer without reading her books?
> >
> > Can you just not read, Keith? I have not formed an opinion about PJ
> > beyond the opinion I've stated.
>
> I think you know that I was referring to your opinion, stated in your
> original post, that "PJ is not a writer".
I know that David Beckham is not an astronaut.
> I don't understand how you can
> arrive at that conclusion without reading her work.
>
One more time. I am not talking about any issue of skill or craftswomanship.
> > All I can do with cavils like yours, Keith, is repeat what I've
> > already said. I can't speak to the message you *think* I'm conveying.
>
> So be it. I'll remain off-message.
It's your prerogative.
Zen
Keith Leng
news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "Keith Leng" <ke...@REMOVEabcTHISkeith-leng.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bj2k5e$eetcc$1...@ID-149768.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Keith Leng" <ke...@REMOVEabcTHISkeith-leng.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > news:<bj1rvg$ef5gj$1...@ID-149768.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not distinguishing one type of endeavour from another.
> > > > > Definitively not. I accept that PJ can have skill as a writer - I
> > > > > actually don't know whether she does, since I haven't read her
books,
> > > > > and it's moot whether her comic writing shows skill - what I am
> > > > > talking about is not about who does or doesn't exhibit skills.
> > > >
> > > > How do you form an opinion about a writer without reading her books?
> > >
> > > Can you just not read, Keith? I have not formed an opinion about PJ
> > > beyond the opinion I've stated.
> >
> > I think you know that I was referring to your opinion, stated in your
> > original post, that "PJ is not a writer".
>
> I know that David Beckham is not an astronaut.
Do you feel, not having read any of PJ's work, that it was reasonable to
open a post concerning what you most value in writing with the words "...I
don't like the idea of PJ." and "PJ is not a writer."? If you wanted to take
an example of Postmodernism, the logical place to look would be among
writers with whose work you are familiar. You had no reason to mention PJ at
all. It seems to me that you simply went out of your way to insult her.
> > I don't understand how you can
> > arrive at that conclusion without reading her work.
> >
>
> One more time. I am not talking about any issue of skill or
craftswomanship.
You made a post predicated on the odd notion that it's possible to separate
writers into two groups without reading their work: writers and neo-writers.
You strive to be a member of the first group and despise the attitude of the
second. You placed PJ in the second group. Your further elucidation of your
theme has consisted in words to the effect of "You just don't understand "
and "It's no reflection on PJ's writing ability".
Keith Leng
news:l4u9lvg74aepha5av...@4ax.com...
There's a story that John Betjemen got so fed up with judging poetry
contests that he started making his decisions by sniffing the envelopes.
Anyone writing on scented paper was in with a shout.
--
Keith
Ultraviolet
> "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
<>
> You had no reason to mention PJ at all.
Of course he did. He lurves her and wants her to pay attention to him.
Hope that clears things up for everyone.
<tying Harwood knot>
<snipping>
::end of thread::
Next?
--
UV
Keith Leng
"Ultraviolet" <paula...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93EB66208...@129.250.170.81...
> "Keith Leng" <ke...@REMOVEabcTHISkeith-leng.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:bj52du$f8ihj$1...@ID-149768.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > "Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:5e7da04d.03090...@posting.google.com...
>
> ::end of thread::
Fairy Nuff.
> Next?
Mucho beer for me, ce soir.
--
Keith
gekko
My take on Zen:
"PJ is not a writer" <-- presently
"PJ can have skill as a writer" <-- doesn't know, as he's not read her work.
How do those two seemingly catterwonky statements apply?
Zen knows PJ researches, interviews, and types up her version of
an assortment of books that he does not consider "writing". This is,
arguably, all he knows of PJ's endeavors in the publishing/writing
business, ergo, as far as he knows, PJ is not a "writer" because
the work she is doing is not "writing."
He allows that PJ may certainly be able to be a "writer" as he
has defined it, so there is no insult to PJ. Merely a statement
of the "fact" that what PJ does now is not "writing", a la Zen.
He does not like the idea of someone researching, interviewing
and typing up their version of an assortment of books to be
marketed, as he considers that effort to be (my extension
of Zen's words follow:)
a) beneath the skills of a true writer
b) merely rehashing information that is already abundantly out there
and which, possibly, could earn the original writers of that
information additional income or notoriety.
I could be wrong, of course.
--
gekko
If only one could get that wonderful feeling of accomplishment without having to accomplish anything.
Keith Leng
news:slrnblcdpv....@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> I could be wrong, of course.
>
Never. You are the Infallible Lizard :-)
--
Keith
Dr Zen
If we used writing1 and writing2 to distinguish writing as
(quasi)artistic endeavour and writing as means to make money... no,
hang on, writing3 would have to be writing as communication, writing4
the sort of writing we find on roadsigns, writing5... but hold on,
hold on, isn't this all a bit arbitrary and won't there be overlaps?
Well, yes.
It's easier with painting (not something everyone does every day).
There's painting as art, sure, got that, painting as house decoration,
painting as commercial illustration...
I could be skilled at painting ceilings and useless at painting
pictures.
What I say is that PJ may or may not have shown skill as a neowriter.
I don't know, but I do know that she can't have shown any skill in her
published work as an artist, because she has not been pursuing art.
This would be true of anyone. Not personal. And yes, it's to do with
how I define art.
I don't allow that "anything can be art". Why allow words to become
meaningless? They are arbitrary, after all, and their meanings are
conventional. We don't even have to agree totally, so long as we agree
enough.
> Zen knows PJ researches, interviews, and types up her version of
> an assortment of books that he does not consider "writing".
Writing1, or whatever. Because "writing" can be what I'm doing now,
no?
> This is,
> arguably, all he knows of PJ's endeavors in the publishing/writing
> business, ergo, as far as he knows, PJ is not a "writer" because
> the work she is doing is not "writing."
>
And I explained why I felt that wasn't writing1 or whatever.
> He allows that PJ may certainly be able to be a "writer" as he
> has defined it, so there is no insult to PJ.
There is no insult to PJ because:
a/ I am making no statement about her capability of being a writer1 or
whatever.
b/ I am not saying that being a writer2 or whatever is not valuable.
> Merely a statement
> of the "fact" that what PJ does now is not "writing", a la Zen.
>
Exactly so. While I think there's absolutely no value in some old cunt
calling me a snob (as if that were an insult!), I would have hoped
that that definition could and would be contested. Ah well, shoot for
the moon, end up sprawled in the gutter, once more.
> He does not like the idea of someone researching, interviewing
> and typing up their version of an assortment of books to be
> marketed, as he considers that effort to be (my extension
> of Zen's words follow:)
>
> a) beneath the skills of a true writer
> b) merely rehashing information that is already abundantly out there
> and which, possibly, could earn the original writers of that
> information additional income or notoriety.
I don't like it for me, that's all, as for (a). As for (b), I think
endlessly marketing the same old shit is not worthy of anyone, but
that's the world.
> I could be wrong, of course.
I actually like what you're doing. It's a bit unnerving but I think it
works.
Zen
Alan Hope
>I could be wrong, of course.
Surely not.
--
AH
Joshua P. Hill
<ke...@REMOVEabcTHISkeith-leng.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Joshua P. Hill" <joshhill.R...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:l4u9lvg74aepha5av...@4ax.com...
>> Why, it's a great deal easier to form an opinion without having read
>> someone's work, unless you're talking about Patty Butler, in which
>> case you'll form the opinion either way. I personally make it a
>> practice never to read a writer's work before I excoriate it, since I
>> don't want to be prejudiced in my assessment. That's why I strongly
>> support the trend to obscure poetry journals with more contributors
>> than readers. The great harm in a poem is apt to befall the reader,
>> while the poet almost inevitably benefits from having rid himself of
>> the thing, like a fellow who has passed a tapeworm. Such atrocities
>> ought to be kept where they belong, that is, an editor's spare time.
>
>There's a story that John Betjemen got so fed up with judging poetry
>contests that he started making his decisions by sniffing the envelopes.
>Anyone writing on scented paper was in with a shout.
That's a great story.
Josh