New British Poetry
Polaris
excellent site:
Matthew Banwell
M@
Polaris <st...@home.ok> wrote in message news:8f3hhj$41j$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Bell
Perhaps you didn't understand my poetry. This is nothing to be angry about.
Why not read it again, or perhaps enrole in a night-class.
Good Luck, Matthew.
Matthew Banwell <mat...@banwell.com> wrote in message
news:3916b...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net...
Matthew Banwell
Rather than reading it again though I am indeed going to 'enroll' in a
night-class, one that teaches spelling ;-)
Angry? Nah - disappointed, seeming as it was supposed to be cutting-edge.
M@
Bell <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:8f6f3u$fn9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
ROBBIE
that all the poems I read in this quarter's 'Poetry Now' magazine. What
poetry do you rate?
Bell
I'm chuffed for you. The poem that you referred to, "Shameless Lonely" is
less to do with masturbation, and more to do with writing poetry in private.
That's a clue. Another clue, incidentally, is that "The Poet 'Does' A Fat
Girl in a Crowded High Street" is less about public sex, and more about
exploiting one's muse for financial or even artistic reasons.
Did you get to read "The Impossibility of Art" though? That really is a
cracking play. I hope to extend it, because I don't actually believe the
reductive po-mo conclusions it raises. We shall see.
Anyway, do visit again. I hope to put a few links to some of the theorists
that have influenced my work (Jakobson for instance).
I HAVE SPELL CHECKED THIS LETTER, SO AS NOT TO CAUSE FURTHER OFFENCE
:-{ ) }
Bell
Matthew Banwell <mat...@banwell.com> wrote in message
news:3916c...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net...
> Yes that's right, I didn't understand it, especially the one about
wanking.
> Rather than reading it again though I am indeed going to 'enroll' in a
> night-class, one that teaches spelling ;-)
>
> Angry? Nah - disappointed, seeming as it was supposed to be cutting-edge.
>
> M@
>
> Bell <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:8f6f3u$fn9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> > Thank-you for visiting my website.
> >
> > Perhaps you didn't understand my poetry. This is nothing to be angry
> about.
> > Why not read it again, or perhaps enrole in a night-class.
> >
> > Good Luck, Matthew.
> >
> >
> >
Matthew Banwell
read 'Poetry Now' but suggest that you may want to cancel the subscription.
Anyway, it's not about who anyone rates - there is no room in poetry for a
my-favourite's-better-than-yours debate. If you enjoyed the stuff on
Justin's site then great , that's your call, all power to you; I just
thought that after the proud boast of being cutting-edge, finding
sixth-form-angst 'look at all these long words I know' poems devoid of
grace, wit and beauty was a disappointment. Is all. Anyone have any other
suggestions where the cutting edge is? I'd love to find it...
ROBBIE <zee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f6o3r$rnv$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Banwell, have you no taste? I thought every poem in the collection better
> that all the poems I read in this quarter's 'Poetry Now' magazine. What
> poetry do you rate?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Matthew Banwell
Matthew Banwell
your emotions? Good call - I've often wondered about that too. Want to
follow this up?
This idea doesn't come across to me in the poem you mention though. Sorry -
I guess not knowing what 'muliebritous' and 'enbonpoint' mean really gets in
the way.
Problem with having to explain a poem outside of its own context (I hate it
when at readings people spend more time talking about what their poem is
about that it takes to read it) is that it means the poem is flawed in
becoming an autonomous piece of communication. I think a little more clarity
(hell, maybe even dumbing down a bit) would make ALL of your poems work a
lot better.
M@
Bell <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:8f6o88$llr$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> That's great Matthew,
>
> I'm chuffed for you. The poem that you referred to, "Shameless Lonely" is
> less to do with masturbation, and more to do with writing poetry in
private.
> That's a clue. Another clue, incidentally, is that "The Poet 'Does' A Fat
> Girl in a Crowded High Street" is less about public sex, and more about
> exploiting one's muse for financial or even artistic reasons.
> Did you get to read "The Impossibility of Art" though? That really is a
> cracking play. I hope to extend it, because I don't actually believe the
> reductive po-mo conclusions it raises. We shall see.
>
> Anyway, do visit again. I hope to put a few links to some of the
theorists
> that have influenced my work (Jakobson for instance).
>
> I HAVE SPELL CHECKED THIS LETTER, SO AS NOT TO CAUSE FURTHER OFFENCE
> :-{ ) }
>
> Bell
>
> Matthew Banwell <mat...@banwell.com> wrote in message
> news:3916c...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net...
> > Yes that's right, I didn't understand it, especially the one about
> wanking.
> > Rather than reading it again though I am indeed going to 'enroll' in a
> > night-class, one that teaches spelling ;-)
> >
> > Angry? Nah - disappointed, seeming as it was supposed to be
cutting-edge.
> >
> > M@
> >
> > Bell <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in message
> > news:8f6f3u$fn9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> > > Thank-you for visiting my website.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you didn't understand my poetry. This is nothing to be angry
> > about.
> > > Why not read it again, or perhaps enrole in a night-class.
> > >
> > > Good Luck, Matthew.
> > >
> > >
> > >
Matthew Banwell
M@
Matthew Banwell <mat...@banwell.com> wrote in message
news:3916e...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net...
Joe Sykes
<mat...@banwell.com> writes
>I am indeed going to 'enroll' in a night-class, one that teaches
spelling ;-)
I like 'enrol'.
Syko.
Joe Sykes
writes
>The poem that you referred to, "Shameless Lonely" is
>less to do with masturbation, and more to do with writing poetry in private.
Interesting. I thought writing poetry was a private matter by definition.
Scribbled on a crowded train or composed in a sunlit park, writing poetry
is an exclusive practice. Masturbation on the other er hand is a private
matter by deprivation ... usually.
>That's a clue. Another clue, incidentally, is that "The Poet 'Does' A Fat
>Girl in a Crowded High Street" is less about public sex, and more about
>exploiting one's muse for financial or even artistic reasons.
You have a muse? How wonderful. Pity she wasn't looking when you set out
to write that excruciatingly contorted sentence.
>Did you get to read "The Impossibility of Art" though? That really is a
>cracking play. I hope to extend it, because I don't actually believe the
>reductive po-mo conclusions it raises. We shall see.
>
>Anyway, do visit again. I hope to put a few links to some of the theorists
>that have influenced my work (Jakobson for instance).
Oh dear. UEA syndrome.
Syko.
Peter Stewart Richards
"Matthew Banwell" <mat...@banwell.com> wrote:
Not only, but also:
>Anyone have any other
> suggestions where the cutting edge is?
"Here it is"
said half a mouse,
rapidly leaving the scene
of the harvest.
--
p
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ROBBIE
>
> This idea doesn't come across to me in the poem you mention though.
Sorry -
> I guess not knowing what 'muliebritous' and 'enbonpoint' mean really gets
in
> the way.
Get your dictionary out- it's the only way you're gonna learn........
>
> Problem with having to explain a poem outside of its own context (I hate
it
> when at readings people spend more time talking about what their poem is
> about that it takes to read it) is that it means the poem is flawed in
> becoming an autonomous piece of communication. I think a little more
clarity
> (hell, maybe even dumbing down a bit) would make ALL of your poems work a
> lot better.
>
> M@
>
> Bell <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:8f6o88$llr$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> > That's great Matthew,
> >
> > I'm chuffed for you. The poem that you referred to, "Shameless Lonely"
is
> > less to do with masturbation, and more to do with writing poetry in
> private.
> > That's a clue. Another clue, incidentally, is that "The Poet 'Does' A
Fat
> > Girl in a Crowded High Street" is less about public sex, and more about
> > exploiting one's muse for financial or even artistic reasons.
> > Did you get to read "The Impossibility of Art" though? That really is a
> > cracking play. I hope to extend it, because I don't actually believe
the
> > reductive po-mo conclusions it raises. We shall see.
> >
> > Anyway, do visit again. I hope to put a few links to some of the
> theorists
> > that have influenced my work (Jakobson for instance).
> >
> > I HAVE SPELL CHECKED THIS LETTER, SO AS NOT TO CAUSE FURTHER OFFENCE
> > :-{ ) }
> >
> > Bell
> >
> > Matthew Banwell <mat...@banwell.com> wrote in message
> > news:3916c...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net...
> > > Yes that's right, I didn't understand it, especially the one about
> > wanking.
> > > Rather than reading it again though I am indeed going to 'enroll' in a
> > > night-class, one that teaches spelling ;-)
> > >
Bell
Joe Sykes
> writes
>just what he likes.
> Interesting. I thought writing poetry was a private matter by definition.
Eh? How can "writing poetry" be defined in this way?
> Scribbled on a crowded train or composed in a sunlit park,
You've not lived 'til you've masturbated in a crowded train or a sunlit
park. Or was that a crowded park and a sunlit train?
>writing poetry
> is an exclusive practice.
(Well masturbation is hardly inclusive now is it?)
> Masturbation on the other er hand is a private
> matter by deprivation ... usually.
Or masturbation is a wonderful celebration of one's sexuality: a means, by
which one may unselfconsciously explore one's psycho-sexual terrain.
Wanking is vital and life-affirming. Oh, and its also a social taboo, which
is what the poem is about.
> >That's a clue. Another clue, incidentally, is that "The Poet 'Does' A
Fat
> >Girl in a Crowded High Street" is less about public sex, and more about
> >exploiting one's muse for financial or even artistic reasons.
>
> You have a muse? How wonderful. Pity she wasn't looking when you set out
> to write that excruciatingly contorted sentence
...Says the man whose language is so habitualised that he can't help but use
the phrase "excruciatingly contorted"
My muse? Yeah, she's fat and seventeen and I fucked her outside Woolworths
in Southampton.
> Oh dear. UEA syndrome.
> Syko.
You're an ignorant peasant, as well
Bell
Bell
> "Exploiting one's muse for financial or even artistic reasons" - whoring
> your emotions? Good call - I've often wondered about that too. Want to
> follow this up?
Sure, poetry, necessarilly externalises that which is usually remains
internal, in our culture. That is, the communion between the unconscious
and the conscious. It is done solely for the sake of the sound of
language - for the only feature that is exclusive to poetry is a
self-conscious regard for the sounds of words, it is for the sound that
poets write.
> This idea doesn't come across to me in the poem you mention though.
Sorry -
> I guess not knowing what 'muliebritous' and 'enbonpoint' mean really gets
in
> the way.
Yeah, I can see how you'd be handicapped by this. I did think, when I wrote
the poem, that someone of average intelligence and learning would know the
meanings of these words...
...I still maintain that , Matthew.
BTW - embonpoint derives directly from the French - "en bon point" being in
a good condition. I stuck with the French spelling because the formation of
the meme, "en", (toungue to pallet) is more delicate than "em". Also, the
movement of "en" to "bon" is more sensual than the 'blurting' out of "em"
"bon", where the lips are together for the transition of sounds. My aim was
to describe the fat girl as being sensual, inteligent, and not at all
slovenly.
> Problem with having to explain a poem outside of its own context (I hate
it
> when at readings people spend more time talking about what their poem is
> about that it takes to read it)
Yeah, like you've ever been to a poetry been to a poetry reading!
>is that it means the poem is flawed in
> becoming an autonomous piece of communication.
autonomous? Look, if your not totally confident at using big-long words,
then perhaps you had better leave it to the big-strong boys. Autonomous,
indeed!
>I think a little more clarity
I bet you never got beyond Stephen's Telemacha, blaming Joyce for being
obscure.
> (hell, maybe even dumbing down a bit) would make ALL of your poems work a
> lot better.
You want me to stoop for a little man who is more concerned by the way words
are spelled, than by what they mean, and who believes that nothing in art
should be so difficult that you have to work for it?
No
Bell
Joe Sykes
>Joe Sykes
>> writes
>>just what he likes.
>
Oh dear.
>> Interesting. I thought writing poetry was a private matter by definition.
>
>Eh? How can "writing poetry" be defined in this way?
>
By the application of reason? Writing poetry, as I understand it, is the
personal expression of idea. It is by definition, therefore, a private
matter. Of course, you may reject my definition as the conventional view
and tell us that you are a unique exponent of a brave new sociopoetical
movement, but you'd have to convince us with argument, and new poetry. So
far you have provided the same old same old.
>> Scribbled on a crowded train or composed in a sunlit park,
>
>You've not lived 'til you've masturbated in a crowded train or a sunlit
>park.
I'll take your word for it.
>Or was that a crowded park and a sunlit train?
>
>>writing poetry
>> is an exclusive practice.
>
>(Well masturbation is hardly inclusive now is it?)
>
I see the application of reason is not your strong point. You imply that
you include the general public in your masturbatory practice, yet you
appear to mean here that masturbation is a solitary business. I tend to
keep it at one remove from the community, though my missus does like the
occasional pearl necklace, which demands a certain concentration from
both parties.
>> Masturbation on the other er hand is a private
>> matter by deprivation ... usually.
>
>Or masturbation is a wonderful celebration of one's sexuality: a means, by
>which one may unselfconsciously explore one's psycho-sexual terrain.
>Wanking is vital and life-affirming. Oh, and its also a social taboo, which
>is what the poem is about.
>
May I differ ... ? Wanking is vital and life-affirming - for you. It was
a social taboo a century ago. Today it's accepted that wanking is just
another sexual expression, private or otherwise. But hardly a wonderful
celebration of one's sexuality, I suggest. I'm not much interested in
your rather dull poem(s) rather I was interested in why you wrote them.
I joined the discussion to probe your 'inspiration', not your 'work'.
>
>> >That's a clue. Another clue, incidentally, is that "The Poet 'Does' A
>Fat
>> >Girl in a Crowded High Street" is less about public sex, and more about
>> >exploiting one's muse for financial or even artistic reasons.
>>
>> You have a muse? How wonderful. Pity she wasn't looking when you set out
>> to write that excruciatingly contorted sentence
>...Says the man whose language is so habitualised that he can't help but use
>the phrase "excruciatingly contorted"
>
Habitualised? What on earth does that mean? I have a feeling you heard a
word that sounds like it - but I have to tell you that 'habituated' means
the opposite of what you intend. Perhaps in your charming semiliterate
way you mean, informed by habit, which doesn't work either.
>My muse? Yeah, she's fat and seventeen and I fucked her outside Woolworths
>in Southampton.
I'm sure she is, and you did. Jolly well done.
>> Oh dear. UEA syndrome.
>> Syko.
>You're an ignorant peasant, as well
Oh.
Syko.
Matthew Banwell
I disagree that poetry "is done solely for the sake of the sound of
language". If this is true why use words in the first place - you may as
well defer to whale-song? But sure, the voice is an instrument and making
something sound 'right' is valuable. I however, do not write "for the sound"
(not sure why I do - but that's another discussion).
"Average intelligence and learning" - does having English A Level and Degree
count as below average? I'm struggling with "coruscating scintiscan" too by
the way. Let people enjoy the words they hear and/or read rather than
attempting to get off by establishing your superiority over them - how is an
audience supposed to interpolate with your work if it intimidates? Use
poetry to affirm not impress.
Have I ever been to a poetry reading? Been to them, watched them, read at
them - made people laugh and cry (I'm aspiring to doing both with the one
poem some day).
Autonomous = independent. Sorry, you big-strong boy you...
"is that it means the poem is flawed in becoming an independent piece of
communication."
I never even got to Stephen's Telemacha (who is he anyway?) let alone beyond
it - hell, Shakespeare never read any Shakespeare and look how far he got(!)
Finally, I don't want you to stoop - you carry on, all power to you - though
yes I am bothered by the way a word is spelled versus what it means or
indeed how it sounds. This however could be seen as another example of the
barriers you seem (to me) to occasionally put in front of your work. And yes
I agree one should sometimes have to work at art (any art) to enable it to
become its most resonant but I believe that this work is done away from any
actual piece, through the broken hearts, longing, and failures (and joy) of
living.
M@
Bell <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:8f81hp$qls$2...@lure.pipex.net...
Simon Nicholls
Matthew Banwell <mat...@banwell.com> wrote in message
news:3916e...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net...
> "Exploiting one's muse for financial or even artistic reasons" - whoring
> your emotions? Good call - I've often wondered about that too. Want to
> follow this up?
>
Sorry -
> I guess not knowing what 'muliebritous' and 'enbonpoint' mean really gets
in
> the way.
>
it
> when at readings people spend more time talking about what their poem is
> becoming an autonomous piece of communication. I think a little more
clarity
> (hell, maybe even dumbing down a bit) would make ALL of your poems work a
> lot better.
>
>
I couldn't agree more. I have the same problem with Surrealism and Opera.
They are art forms that require a certain level of education to be
appreciated. Once you have been taught where the Surrealists were coming
from you begin to see why they were painting grass blue and can start to
appreciate it. I guess I'm a Landscape man. You need to have read the story
and understand Italian to fully appreciate most Opera. Much old poetry
referred to classical heroes from Greek Mythology, again requiring a certain
level of education. Whilst there is a place for "informed" poetry I can't be
arsed to get the dictionary out just to read something. I want to
immediately understand what I'm looking at, listening to or reading. Using
big words just makes your work elitist.
I also find it annoying when poets write about being poets. The only way I
can describe it is by using singer/songwriters as an example. Many
singer/songwriters reach a point in their careers where all they do is
travel to and from gigs every night. The only thing they can write about is
being on the road. Unfortunately most people never have or will experience
this and find it totally irrelevant to their lives. You end up with "just
another road song."
I believe in looking out instead of in. A bit of empathy and understanding
for someone else, real or imaginary goes a lot further than exposing the
twisted soul of a tortured poet.
Anyone else feel like that?
Si
(BTW - I quite like the poem even though I don't understand the first
verse.)
Bell
definition.
>Eh? How can "writing poetry" be defined in this way?
> By the application of reason? Writing poetry, as I understand it, is the
> personal expression of idea. It is by definition, therefore, a private
> matter.
Well, let's talk about reason then, shall we? Now, if I remember from my
Philosophy modules at university (I studied English and Philosophy), One
defines a thing by supplying its necessary and sufficient conditions.
OK, let's do the test!
1.0 The object 'x' is a poem if, and only if it "is the personal expression
of idea" - is what you posit.
2.0 SO, a poem MUST be a personal expression of idea as a prerequesite to
it being a poem.
2.1 You know, Joe, I shall give you that one, although I think it is a
little tautologous, as any expression of an idea has to be
personal to the expressing party.
2.3 Monroe Beardsley, incidently questions whether an idea has to be
expressed, pointing at some computer written poetry,
but lets not lose sight of the matter in hand, shall we?
3.0 SO it is sufficient that a thing is a "personal expression of idea" for
it to be a poem.
3.1 Come off it!
3.2 I had an idea that I go into Southampton last Saturday with my two
children.
3.2.1 I expressed this idea - me, personally.
3.2.2 It was a personal expression of idea.
3.3 It was not a poem.
3.4 SO "Personal expression of idea" is not a sufficient condition for
poetry.
3.5 Your definition doesn't hold.
The same test goes for your "definition" that poetry is a private matter.
I shall let you do the necessary and sufficient condition test, yourself -
that is, if you have to before you see how your reason is floored (sic)
>Of course, you may reject my definition as the conventional view
No, I reject your definition as meaningless because it fails to define
anything.
>but you'd have to convince us with argument, and new poetry.
Well Wittgenstein gives you a way out with most art, and if you can be
arsed, I suggest that you go look it up-ah. But I believe that poetry is
defined by the way the narrative concern is secondary to the discoursal
concern. Pure and simple, the poetic function seeks to dislocate sound from
meaning and give the sound a sense of palpability. As TS Eliot said, with
poetry you understand it before you know what it means. This is what I do
with my poetry understanding comes from a phonetic matrix that originates
prior to your appreciating the word's meaning.
> >>writing poetry
> >> is an exclusive practice.
> >(Well masturbation is hardly inclusive now is it?)
> I see the application of reason is not your strong point.
Well I got a First Class Honours Degree, so I did something right!
>You imply that
> you include the general public in your masturbatory practice, yet you
> appear to mean here that masturbation is a solitary business.
That is a paradox of post 60's sexuality. We are aware that all of us,
belong to what might be termed a 'masturbatory community'. But we are all
fiecely private about our own masturbatory practice. Hidden and open,
private and public.
>I tend to
> keep it at one remove from the community, though my missus does like the
> occasional pearl necklace, which demands a certain concentration from
> both parties.
She only says that because it turns you on. She would much prefer an
orgasm, but she doesn't want to rock the marital boat simply because you
cannot rock the marital Casbah.
> May I differ ... ? Wanking is vital and life-affirming - for you. It was
> a social taboo a century ago. Today it's accepted that wanking is just
> another sexual expression, private or otherwise.
It is still a social taboo. You declare that you're taking a wank-break at
work when all the smokers file out into the carpark If your mother phones
up while your tossing off, do you tell her? Do you continue?
No, don't answer that.
> >> You have a muse? How wonderful. Pity she wasn't looking when you set
out
> >> to write that excruciatingly contorted sentence
> >...Says the man whose language is so habitualised that he can't help but
use
> >the phrase "excruciatingly contorted"
> >
> Habitualised? What on earth does that mean? I have a feeling you heard a
> word that sounds like it - but I have to tell you that 'habituated' means
> the opposite of what you intend. Perhaps in your charming semiliterate
> way you mean, informed by habit, which doesn't work either.
Orwell gives a dramatic picture of the individual using language in an
absolutely habitualized mode:
"When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the
familiar phrases - bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny - one
often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being, but
some kind of dummy... A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone
some distance towards turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises
are coming out of the larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be
if he were choosing his words for himself."
from
Roger Fowler
Linguistic Criticism (ISBN 0-19-289261-4)
Opus £8.99 in all good bookshops
So now you know what habitualised means! And remember, just because a word
doesn't appear in your Concise Collins, it doesn't mean that it isn't a
word.
Now, you may run along.
But remember this; Joe, you are not very intelligent.
Sorry, but sometimes people have to be told.
ROBBIE
isn't very intelligent- he's a highly competitive, speed addled rebarbative
sub editor who writes obfuscatory poser prose. Reminds me of Brentano,
intensely.
Bell <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:8fb9js$b3j$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Matthew Banwell
your whim
and in your own time to express yourself and shoot for a goal (or something)
but by the second album (or book), you're not a starving artist, but
fully-paid up, and the hunger has gone; you write songs but only because
'that's what you do'. Hmmm...
M@
Bell
ass<NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> : Guaging the circumfrance of her upper-arm
>
> What's wrong with this line?
I know, I know! Ask me! Ask me!
Bell
mule <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ftrihss0r3pmeg2tg...@4ax.com...
> "Bell-end" <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in article
> <8fbphb$kg9$1...@lure.pipex.net>:
Coo, witty. You know, when I picked that nick, I never thought
anyone would be quite as mean spirited as to make fun of me. Now
take that back before I sulk.
> You are a pseudo-intellectual wannabe whose instant reaction to the
> merest hint of criticism is to declare intellectual superiority over
> the critic and to refuse to accept that you could be the slightest
> bit wrong, or that another opinion could be equally valid.
>
> Now, stop trying to throw your thesaurus around, put your toys back
> in the pram and be prepared to discuss your work like an adult.
> Alternatively, don't post a URL to a ng if you can't take the heat.
Yawn!
I thought I responded to criticism very well.
I fielded the questions quite reasonably.
I know that my poetry is of a very high standard, and so I am bound to
assert that much of the criticism levelled it is quite ill-founded. I can
use my intellectual superiority (which has been well gauged) and greater
understanding of art, literature and aesthetics to prosecute the reasons
why my poetry is excellent. I would be quite happy to accept a decent
argument against my work. That being said, I may not agree that poetry's
proper function is so very different from my own views, but I would go so
far as to agree to differ.
There has been no decent argument, but numerous calls for me to "dumb down"
and niggardly references to typos and misspellings. The only criticism of
the poems qua poetry, is that they are "dull". No further illumination is
offered, and this is apparently from people with degrees and ALevels. I
just hope they didn't attack their given texts with the same rigour that
they did my work, for they have so far been able to establish precisely
nothing.
One thing that is noticable in the criticism made the poems in my website
www.2000.bell.care4free.net ) is the fear that people, like you, have of an
extended vocabulary. It is significant that the two most expressive writers
in the English Language, Joseph Conrad, and Vladimir Nabokov, did not speak
English as a first language. They came to the language afresh, without the
prejudice of ignorant parents and teachers who live in fear of people being
able to express themselves with absolute precision, or who live in fear of
anyone celebrating the music of language. I refuse to bow to your
middlebrow gospel of fear. You cannot express yourself, and you want to
stop everyone else from expressing themselves. You're criticism, and the
criticism of others in this NG smack of intelectual fascism. Your parochial
mind means that you shall never be an artist, and you will spend your life
following people like me without really knowing why, but for the fact that
you followed the people who came before me.
Justin
ROBBIE
wick more than you are
mule <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ftrihss0r3pmeg2tg...@4ax.com...
> "Bell-end" <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in article
> <8fbphb$kg9$1...@lure.pipex.net>:
>
> >
> > ass<NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> Coo, witty. You know, when I picked that nick, I never thought
> anyone would be quite as mean spirited as to make fun of me. Now
> take that back before I sulk.
>
> > > : Guaging the circumfrance of her upper-arm
> > >
> > > What's wrong with this line?
> >
> > I know, I know! Ask me! Ask me!
>
> If you know, then why haven't you corrected it on your site?
>
> You are a pseudo-intellectual wannabe whose instant reaction to the
> merest hint of criticism is to declare intellectual superiority over
> the critic and to refuse to accept that you could be the slightest
> bit wrong, or that another opinion could be equally valid.
>
> Now, stop trying to throw your thesaurus around, put your toys back
> in the pram and be prepared to discuss your work like an adult.
> Alternatively, don't post a URL to a ng if you can't take the heat.
>
> mule
> --
> "jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule"
> Bob Dylan
ROBBIE
Bell <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:8fc469$rl8$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> mule <NOS...@sammeldrum.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ftrihss0r3pmeg2tg...@4ax.com...
> > "Bell-end" <2000...@care4free.net> wrote in article
> > <8fbphb$kg9$1...@lure.pipex.net>:
>
> Coo, witty. You know, when I picked that nick, I never thought
> anyone would be quite as mean spirited as to make fun of me. Now
> take that back before I sulk.
>
> > You are a pseudo-intellectual wannabe whose instant reaction to the
> > merest hint of criticism is to declare intellectual superiority over
> > the critic and to refuse to accept that you could be the slightest
> > bit wrong, or that another opinion could be equally valid.
> >
> > Now, stop trying to throw your thesaurus around, put your toys back
> > in the pram and be prepared to discuss your work like an adult.
> > Alternatively, don't post a URL to a ng if you can't take the heat.
>
ROBBIE
Oh and where's that arrogant prat Sykes. He's waiting before he responds so
it looks like he's frightfully busy on yet more poser fiction...........
Joe Sykes
>> >> Interesting. I thought writing poetry was a private matter by
>definition.
>>Eh? How can "writing poetry" be defined in this way?
>
>> By the application of reason? Writing poetry, as I understand it, is the
>> personal expression of idea. It is by definition, therefore, a private
>> matter.
>
>Well, let's talk about reason then, shall we?
Must we? The rationalist pretence that reason can isolate truth is wasted
in this environment, surely? I could be lying when I say I think you're
a right dickhead.
>Now, if I remember from my
>Philosophy modules at university (I studied English and Philosophy),
What on earth is a module? My degree is in History and Cultural Studies.
My wife has a first degree in Sociology (no I didn't marry her at gun
point). My son is writing his doctorate on Modern Communication. My
neighbour down the lane has a B.Ed. What is your point?
> One
>defines a thing by supplying its necessary and sufficient conditions.
>
Balls. One defines a thing by describing its basic perceived qualities. A
thing is a thing is a thing in those conditions in which it is described.
I think you're confusing definition with poor eyesight.
>OK, let's do the test!
>
>1.0 The object 'x' is a poem if, and only if it "is the personal expression
>of idea" - is what you posit.
>
No, it isn't (what I posit). I suggest that writing poetry is a private
matter because, in my opinion, a person may express idea by choosing to
write poetry. The object X is a poem if you say so.
>2.0 SO, a poem MUST be a personal expression of idea as a prerequesite to
>it being a poem.
You have drawn a straight line from A to B. You appear to confuse reason
with geometry. Perhaps you should have spent more time with Socrates, and
less with Euclid.
>2.1 You know, Joe, I shall give you that one,
As I say, a straight line from A to B.
>although I think it is a
>little tautologous, as any expression of an idea has to be
> personal to the expressing party.
I rather think that you are pleonastic here. You have built yourself a
mountain out of my molehill.
>2.3 Monroe Beardsley, incidently questions whether an idea has to be
>expressed, pointing at some computer written poetry,
> but lets not lose sight of the matter in hand, shall we?
Beardsley is a lightweight, and he meant, in context, that the existence
of an idea is not necessarily dependent on expression in text. The matter
in hand is your determination to utter facile join up the dots hogwash...
>
>3.0 SO it is sufficient that a thing is a "personal expression of idea" for
>it to be a poem.
>3.1 Come off it!
>3.2 I had an idea that I go into Southampton last Saturday with my two
>children.
>3.2.1 I expressed this idea - me, personally.
>3.2.2 It was a personal expression of idea.
>3.3 It was not a poem.
>3.4 SO "Personal expression of idea" is not a sufficient condition for
>poetry.
>3.5 Your definition doesn't hold.
>
...like that. Let me see if I can help you with parentheses, upper case
and decorated text - "I thought *~WRITING~* poetry was a private matter by
definition. Scribbled on a crowded train or composed in a sunlit park,
writing poetry is an exclusive practice."
>The same test goes for your "definition" that poetry is a private matter.
I did not say that poetry is a private matter. The best poetry, poetry
that is accepted for publication on merit, that is bought by readers of
ideas, is a very public matter. The writing of poetry, even by dickheads,
is private. Plastering the www with your depressing offerings for free is
only slightly less worthwhile than shitting on your sitting room carpet.
In your case you choose to invite guests to your private functions. And
like countless dickheads before you, you confuse complaint about the smell
with criticism.
>I shall let you do the necessary and sufficient condition test, yourself -
>that is, if you have to before you see how your reason is floored (sic)
Conditionals require intelligent deployment of antecedents for the con-
sequent to convince. Your comprehension skills leave you disadvantaged
from the outset, and your arguments are based on your misapprehension of
my point. Worse, you seem unconvinced by your own premise, as indeed you
are unconvinced by your pun.
>>Of course, you may reject my definition as the conventional view
>
>No, I reject your definition as meaningless because it fails to define
>anything.
My definition is that definition of writing poetry that I put to you as
a given. You may reject it, of course, without reason.
>
>>but you'd have to convince us with argument, and new poetry.
>Well Wittgenstein gives you a way out with most art, and if you can be
>arsed, I suggest that you go look it up-ah.
A way out? What can you mean? I'm familiar with Wittgenstein, and I have
to say you're talking bollocks. I've read three or four translations of
the Tractatus, the Philosophical Investigations, much of the published
student lecture notes and I can't remember any instance of Wittgenstein
giving me or any one else 'a way out with most art'. Quite what art has
to do with a discussion in Usenet about your motivation for making poems,
I'm at a loss to know.
>But I believe that poetry is
>defined by the way the narrative concern is secondary to the discoursal
>concern. Pure and simple, the poetic function seeks to dislocate sound from
>meaning and give the sound a sense of palpability. As TS Eliot said, with
>poetry you understand it before you know what it means. This is what I do
>with my poetry understanding comes from a phonetic matrix that originates
>prior to your appreciating the word's meaning.
Eliot also said, 'It seems just possible that a poem might happen to a
very young man: but a poem is not poetry - that is a life.' I gotta say,
pal, your poetic function is full of shit. What you do with your poetry
is, frankly, your business. I did try to elicit a response from you that
might have explained your reasons for writing it. No luck.
>> >>writing poetry
>> >> is an exclusive practice.
>> >(Well masturbation is hardly inclusive now is it?)
>> I see the application of reason is not your strong point.
>
>Well I got a First Class Honours Degree, so I did something right!
You too? The world is full of first class honours graduates with no minds,
and a good many of them are finding their way into this new medium (calm
yourselves, guys, I mean relatively new).
>
>>You imply that
>> you include the general public in your masturbatory practice, yet you
>> appear to mean here that masturbation is a solitary business.
>
>That is a paradox of post 60's sexuality.
Mmmnah. I think it's another example of your incomprehension.
> We are aware that all of us,
>belong to what might be termed a 'masturbatory community'. But we are all
>fiecely private about our own masturbatory practice. Hidden and open,
>private and public.
>
Oh. Right. Mmm.
>>I tend to
>> keep it at one remove from the community, though my missus does like the
>> occasional pearl necklace, which demands a certain concentration from
>> both parties.
>
>She only says that because it turns you on. She would much prefer an
>orgasm, but she doesn't want to rock the marital boat simply because you
>cannot rock the marital Casbah.
>
I see. I'll discuss it.
Not terrible good at this, are you, mate? "Excruciatingly contorted" is
not a familiar phrase. It appeared as if by magic as I sat stunned by your
sentence. You must try and make sense of your literary pretensions, and
make sure you are quoting appropriately. Or people will think you're a
dickhead.
>So now you know what habitualised means!
I know what you think it means, and it jolly well can mean what you say it
means if you want to coin the word.
>And remember, just because a word
>doesn't appear in your Concise Collins, it doesn't mean that it isn't a
>word.
>
I don't own a Collins. It doesn't appear in my Chambers, and it doesn't
appear in my Concise Oxford. I'd be obliged if someone with access to the
O.E.D. instructs me in its meaning and use. I can only hope that it is too
ugly to appear anywhere but in your semiliterate imaginings.
>Now, you may run along.
>But remember this; Joe, you are not very intelligent.
>Sorry, but sometimes people have to be told.
How kind. It's true, I'm not very intelligent. Fairly bright, in my own
steadfast way, intellectually sound when it counts, literate, numerate,
a determined reader of other people's scholarship, and, fortunately, I'm
able to recognise a blindingly stupid fuckwit like you from fifty yards,
and write you into the ground.
Syko.
Joe Sykes
mmeldrum.freeserve.co.uk>
>I'd like a sesame seed bun.
I could do with a good muffin, me.
Syko.
ROBBIE
Sykes is an angry smart ass. What does he do for living? Let's have a
guessing game eh?
Joe Sykes <Sy...@omism.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sH0UbsA0...@omism.demon.co.uk...
Matthew Banwell
A decent argument against your work? Mine is that it doesn't address a
shared consciousness despite making calls to supposed brothers who 'Work for
the union' as you, lying, say you do. You say you refuse to bow but seem to
expect your reader to kneel at your assumed magnificence. Indeed, the only
point-of-reference that the subjects of your poetry make is to yourself
which makes it hard to relate to your intimidating writing. Therefore, when
reading your poems I hear 'Justin the poet' rather than 'Justin the bloke' -
it's all about you, rather than the experience. Whilst this is fine as an
act of catharsis on your part, I would question whether you can ask people
to read or listen to that stuff and then expect them to react positively.
The reaction you seem to court is one of analytical judgment. Applause is
the most inappropriate reaction to poetry (and therefore I hate 'poetry
slams') but this idolatry is what you seem to want to happen at the end of
each piece. You're in a Union of one, my friend.
Thus, the only people who will "follow you" (there! - proof positive of your
motivation) are those who compromise emotional involvement for intellectual
integrity; that's their choice. I seek and aspire to the former which is
why, Justin, your work doesn't work for me.
To conclude where this began - cutting edge? Not for me.
M@
Bell
> > Coo, witty. You know, when I picked that nick, I never thought
> > anyone would be quite as mean spirited as to make fun of me. Now
> > take that back before I sulk.
>
> Do you find that you often have trouble spotting sarcasm?
No, that "Coo, witty" bit was a sort of a same to you with knobs on purile
response to your "Bell-end" comment. I was being sarcarstic. That was just
a bit of fun.
> You seem to think a lot about many of your abilities. You are
> deluded.
> > I fielded the questions quite reasonably.
> Here are some examples:
> : Perhaps you didn't understand my poetry. This is nothing to be angry
about.
> : Why not read it again, or perhaps enrole in a night-class.
> Immediately someone questions you, you suggest they don't understand
> and they enrole (sic) in a night class. How very grown up of you.
The cursory way in which Mr Banwell dismissed my poetry lead me to assume
that he had missunderstood the work. This is quite natural, I think. I
percieve there to be prima facie merits in the work, that exist as a result
of my technical excellence in arranging certain non-aesthetic, phonetical
structures. My perception is valid, as I am a skilled poetry critic. As a
result, I put Mr Banwell's lack of taste down to a defective or
underdeveloped sensitivity to art which would develop if he went back to
school. My response was as cursory as Mr Banwell's criticism, but then I saw
his response as not so much an attempt to engage an artist, but to take
pot-shots.
> : Yeah, I can see how you'd be handicapped by this. I did think, when I
wrote
> : the poem, that someone of average intelligence and learning would know
the
> : meanings of these words...
> : ...I still maintain that , Matthew.
>
> Charming fellow aren't you? Rather than actually responding in
> seriousness, you accuse your reader of having below average
> intelligence.
Do people of average intelligence and learning not know the word
"embonpoint", or its French counterpart? Either way, I'm not much
interested in writing for people who cannot, or will not, discover the
meanings of the words, or who feel hurt by individuals using them.
> To Joe Sykes you say:
> : You're an ignorant peasant, as well
> and:
> : Now, you may run along.
> : But remember this; Joe, you are not very intelligent.
> : Sorry, but sometimes people have to be told.
>
> Now, Joe may not be my all-time favourite usenet poster, but, over a
> period of time he has proven himself to be worthy of a read on
> occasion. You, on the other hand, are a first class wanker who is so
> blind to his own inadequacies that he can't see the penis sprouting
> from his own forehead.
Inadequacies that you are, of course, unable to detail: that is, beyond
spelling errors, and syntactic errors on usenet. Sorry, Joe is an idiot and
his poetry reeks. Your enjoyment of his work only serves to underline you
impoverished taste.
> > I know that my poetry is of a very high standard, and so I am bound to
> > assert that much of the criticism levelled it is quite ill-founded.
>
> You confuse knowledge with opinion.
"when a man puts a thing on a pedestal and calls it beautiful, he demands
the same delight from others. He judges not merely for himself but for all
men... he demands this agreement of them. He blames them if they judge
differently, and denies them taste, which he still requires of them as
something they should have; and to this extent it is not open to men to say:
everyone has his own taste"
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement
> > and greater
> > understanding of art, literature and aesthetics to prosecute the
reasons
> > why my poetry is excellent.
>
> I suggest you look up prosecute.
from the latin pro - sequi; to follow up, or pursue. And... yes my
dictionary agrees.
> That's right, poetry should affect people, yours does not.
Oh, I dunno. This is quite a healthy thread, and my webcounter has added a
hundred hits in the last few days. I've certainly affected people in a more
robust way than most posts. You for one can't seem to keep off chatting to
me, so I must have had quite an effect on you! Tell me, have you read the
'Impossibility of Art' yet? Its a corking piece of hermeneutic theatre. Go
see, you'll love it!
>Your
> poetry is written for your own ego-gratification and masturbatory
> purposes.
My two favourite poems, "Fizzing Hetero Come" is some ego gratification, but
is is a universal ego, that all mankind can relish. Enjoy my Fizzing Hetro
Come, Mule, go on!
>The affect they have on the reader is that of boredom. I
> wonder why you felt the need to share them?
I wanted to share them, because they are excellent pieces of poetry, and
deserve to be seen, and enjoyed. If you are too blind to see the beauty of
them, then that's just too bad.
> > No further illumination is
> > offered, and this is apparently from people with degrees and ALevels.
>
> It was you who brought up the fact of your first class honours
> degree,
Well, Mr Banwell brought up his education first.
>which we have no way of verifying.
I imagine that you are suggesting here that I am lying about getting a
first. Mmmmn, well you will just have to take my word for it.
> I could claim to be a professor of English,
That is easily verifiable, though.
> I could claim to have left school at twelve to work down the pit.
That is unlikely, unless you were raised in Venezuela.
> What you claim about your intellectual
> superiority matters not one iota; what you say demonstrates quite
> clearly where your abilities actually lie.
Not really. That I have a First Class Honours Degree is a fact. What
matters is not what I write on the usenet, but what poetry I write. My
poems are excellent.
> you are => you're ! your.
You are a fucking pedant, Mule
Geddit!
> "jewels and binoculars hang from the head of the mule"
Bob Dylan
ROBBIE's
right n'all
Bell
> A decent argument against your work? Mine is that it doesn't address a
> shared consciousness despite making calls to supposed brothers who 'Work
for
> the union' as you, lying, say you do. You say you refuse to bow but seem
to
> expect your reader to kneel at your assumed magnificence. Indeed, the only
> point-of-reference that the subjects of your poetry make is to yourself
> which makes it hard to relate to your intimidating writing. Therefore,
when
> reading your poems I hear 'Justin the poet' rather than 'Justin the
bloke' -
> it's all about you, rather than the experience. Whilst this is fine as an
> act of catharsis on your part, I would question whether you can ask people
> to read or listen to that stuff and then expect them to react positively.
Phew! The problem with the Usenet is its a stand-off every time you get
into a scuffle you have to keep upping the ante until somebody gives up. I
am thankful that you have provided an area of peace here.
Working for the Union is probably my favourite poem. Essentially, it is a
poem showing the way in which the sins of one's childhood are absolved
through one having children; it is an opportunity to raise children who are
clean, and without stigma. It declares that the procreation of offspring
allows us to become forgotten in a flurry generations numbering so many that
they are greater than the sands that laid waste to Ozymandias memory. So
don't let the fact that you were abused as a child destroy you. Make
perfect children, and they will put you in the ground and you will forget,
and in time the whole world will forget. Yet the will be filled with your
progeny.
Working for the Union is a call for procreation.
> The reaction you seem to court is one of analytical judgment. Applause is
> the most inappropriate reaction to poetry (and therefore I hate 'poetry
> slams') but this idolatry is what you seem to want to happen at the end of
> each piece. You're in a Union of one, my friend.
I think in part, it is my arrogance that puts people's backs up (that and my
apparent inability to spell, type and punctuate). Had I been more meek then
I think the responses would have been different, though I don't think I
would have got my poems to such a wide audience.
> Thus, the only people who will "follow you" (there! - proof positive of
your
> motivation) are those who compromise emotional involvement for
intellectual
> integrity; that's their choice. I seek and aspire to the former which is
> why, Justin, your work doesn't work for me.
I can only direct you back to www.2000.bell.care4free.net in the hope that
you will see how excellent my work is. I am sure that given time everyone
will see its brilliance and recognise that they are well thought pieces,
which engage imtellectually, and emotionally.
Bell
>>One defines a thing by supplying its necessary and sufficient conditions.
> Balls. One defines a thing by describing its basic perceived qualities. A
> thing is a thing is a thing in those conditions in which it is described.
> I think you're confusing definition with poor eyesight.
No, one describes a thing in this way. If you define a thing like that, you
end up with; "Bus - big red and smelly" (and you don't see a great queue of
shoppers waiting for your wife's snatch now, do we?). No I think I'd trust
the OED to find the necessary and sufficient conditions to a thing anyway.
OH, COME ON IT WAS A JOKE!
> >Well Wittgenstein gives you a way out with most art, and if you can be
> >arsed, I suggest that you go look it up-ah.
> A way out? What can you mean? I'm familiar with Wittgenstein, and I have
> to say you're talking bollocks. I've read three or four translations of
> the Tractatus, the Philosophical Investigations, much of the published
> student lecture notes and I can't remember any instance of Wittgenstein
> giving me or any one else 'a way out with most art'. Quite what art has
> to do with a discussion in Usenet about your motivation for making poems,
> I'm at a loss to know.
Well go to Philosophical Investigations pp66-7. The argument holds for art,
and likely poetry.
BTW why the hell did you read four different translations? Surely one would
have done for understanding LW, two for the sceptical of translators, but
four? That smacks of paranoia!
> Eliot also said, 'It seems just possible that a poem might happen to a
> very young man: but a poem is not poetry - that is a life.' I gotta say,
> pal, your poetic function is full of shit.
Well I have read some of your poetry, and I have to say that this is a
rather more elegant Eliot quote than the one you cut and pasted into
CONCERTS.
I have to say that the letter you wrote to ROBBIE, bears some resemblance to
my letters, which must mean that you are as much a cunt as me, but you are
rather more shy. Ahhh!
> >Well I got a First Class Honours Degree, so I did something right!
> You too? The world is full of first class honours graduates with no minds,
> and a good many of them are finding their way into this new medium
Yeah, they give 'em out like sweets - so says anyone who hasn't got one.
> Not terrible good at this, are you, mate? "Excruciatingly contorted" is
> not a familiar phrase. It appeared as if by magic as I sat stunned by your
> sentence.
It appeared as if by magic, simply because you have heard it so many times.
Well, that's that sorted.
Joe Sykes
writes
<<
>Sorry, Joe is an idiot and his poetry reeks.
How dare you smell my poetry. And where did you do it? Which poetry, by
the way? Come to that, what?
>Your enjoyment of his work only serves to underline your impoverished
>taste.
I'm surprised that you accuse the mule of enjoying my 'work'. I'm a
ladies hair dresser. You appear to be confused. Frankly, you appear to
be quite the most gormless dickhead ever to get a First Class Honours
degree in Usenet, never mind UKAW. I got a 2/1 actually but my excuse is
I was playing for Surrey Colts in my year out. I broke a wrist (!) and
my averages slumped. Not surprisingly I was demoted to batting four or
five, and only opened the bowling once after my return when it was found
that I could no longer get it in the blockhole consistently, and worse,
that I had a tendency to take out close fielders every third over. Of
course, when it came to finals I could barely hold my pen. All the more
poignant when I tell you that it was a Conway Stewart 'Dinkie'.
Anyway, dickhead, since you are incapable of addressing my inquiry I'll
let you get on with making a bigger prat of yourself with every post and
say, thanks for the ride. Unless you want some more. Come on, if you're
hard enough. Tell me why you write your execrable pants poetry, and I'll
give you a critique. For free.
Syko.
Joe Sykes
wrote
>>>One defines a thing by supplying its necessary and sufficient conditions.
>> Balls. One defines a thing by describing its basic perceived qualities. A
>> thing is a thing is a thing in those conditions in which it is described.
>> I think you're confusing definition with poor eyesight.
>
>No, one describes a thing in this way. If you define a thing like that, you
>end up with; "Bus - big red and smelly"
Just so. That is how one describes ... by describing.
>(and you don't see a great queue of
>shoppers waiting for your wife's snatch now, do we?).
Well, no, not at the bus stop. In the same way you don't see a gang of
passers-by shagging your children on the pavement in Southampton on a
busy Saturday morning, do you? Though I must admit, now that you've
brought the subject up, I'm quite taken with the idea of raping your
wife and kids FOR A JOKE. Maybe I'll write a poem about.
> No I think I'd trust
>the OED to find the necessary and sufficient conditions to a thing anyway.
>
Right, right, that would do it. Sufficient conditions, right. O.E.D.? WTF?
>OH, COME ON IT WAS A JOKE!
Gosh, and I missed it. Let me quote the whole, and try again -
"Well, let's talk about reason then, shall we? Now, if I remember from
my Philosophy modules at university (I studied English and Philosophy),
one defines a thing by supplying its necessary and sufficient conditions."
Not this bit? Other bits of your post? Parts of your original post but
only those with <<<JOKE appended? I expect you're a bit of a card and a
frightfully amusing raconteur/poet/wanker and absolutely keep the whole
pub in stitches, eh? When you say IT WAS A JOKE!
>> >Well Wittgenstein gives you a way out with most art, and if you can be
>> >arsed, I suggest that you go look it up-ah.
>
>> A way out? What can you mean? I'm familiar with Wittgenstein, and I have
>> to say you're talking bollocks. I've read three or four translations of
>> the Tractatus, the Philosophical Investigations, much of the published
>> student lecture notes and I can't remember any instance of Wittgenstein
>> giving me or any one else 'a way out with most art'. Quite what art has
>> to do with a discussion in Usenet about your motivation for making poems,
>> I'm at a loss to know.
>
>Well go to Philosophical Investigations pp66-7. The argument holds for art,
>and likely poetry.
Does it? I don't recall pp66-7, offhand, but you are saying now that the
argument, whatever it is, could possibly, maybe, given a following wind
and tight philosophical ratiocination like yours - "Well Wittgenstein
gives you a way out with most art" - be used to, likely, give credence
to the unmitigated tosh you spout about (your) poetry.
>BTW why the hell did you read four different translations? Surely one would
>have done for understanding LW, two for the sceptical of translators, but
>four? That smacks of paranoia!
I read four translations because there were four translations available to
me. It's only 70 odd pages, and even a fairly bright bloke like me has no
difficulty getting to grips with short texts.
>> Eliot also said, 'It seems just possible that a poem might happen to a
>> very young man: but a poem is not poetry - that is a life.' I gotta say,
>> pal, your poetic function is full of shit.
>Well I have read some of your poetry,
SOME of it? What, say a dozen poems? Thirty?
>and I have to say that this is a
>rather more elegant Eliot quote than the one you cut and pasted into
>CONCERTS.
Paraphrased, mate, not cut and pasted. Like this - "He thinks to go south
in the winter and closes his eyes (he reads much of the night and needs
all the rest he can get)."
A cut and paste would have been this - "I read, much of the night, and go
south in the winter."
Are you absolutely sure you studied English literature? And took a First?
You're a bit of a dunce, really. Aren't you? And way out of your league
writing in this medium.
>
>I have to say that the letter you wrote to ROBBIE, bears some resemblance to
>my letters, which must mean that you are as much a cunt as me, but you are
>rather more shy. Ahhh!
No idea what this means, mate. I'd have to slit my torso from my navel to
my nuts, soak up the blood with a sanitary bath towel, get a chapter of
Hell's Angels to ride their bikes through the gash, reach in and toss them
off, pull them out one by one and send them on their way with a merry quip
before I could be as much a cunt as you, pal.
I've never written a letter to ROBBIE. I answered an email request for
written work with a SS and a poem. I gather you girls share. Interesting
enough knowing you're a pair of public wankers, but to learn that you do
each other in private is, well, illuminating.
>
>> >Well I got a First Class Honours Degree, so I did something right!
>> You too? The world is full of first class honours graduates with no minds,
>> and a good many of them are finding their way into this new medium
>
>Yeah, they give 'em out like sweets - so says anyone who hasn't got one.
>
So says you who says you have got one. I don't have one. I got an upper
second. Piece of piss, really. I chose History so I'd have more time for
sport. I'm not an academic type. And let me tell you, mate, nor are you.
You're an academic shitwipe. Well, no, I take it back. In this medium
you're a shitwipe by any criterion. My son got a First and a Prize. He's
an academic. Quiet lad. His wife's a doll. Teaches English. Always going
on about my tropes.
>> Not terrible good at this, are you, mate? "Excruciatingly contorted" is
>> not a familiar phrase. It appeared as if by magic as I sat stunned by your
>> sentence.
>
>It appeared as if by magic, simply because you have heard it so many times.
>
Really? I'd be interested to learn, from you, where I might have heard it.
>Well, that's that sorted.
As I say - not a clue. That sharp, persistent pain in your upper jaw ain't
toothache, pal.
Syko.
fluffy_...@my-deja.com
Much of my poetry is surrealist in bent and the point of those pieces
is to follow the images and go where they take you, to follow the
subconscious and the stream-of-consciousness. there is an internal
logic to those pieces--not just any line from anywhere goes into them--
but if you try to "figure out" the poem as a whole, you will probably
fail. Surrealism is simply a different way of reading, but there's
nothing that says that you have to become steeped in it. Visit
alt.surrealism to find out how contentious the attempts are to define
surrealism.
the best poetry of course is that which the reader can grasp something
of right away with the first reading, regardless of background, etc.,
but which upon further reflection, or with additional knowledge, takes
on even more dimension.
Regarding making the "fat girl" sensual in the poem--I think you need
quite a bit more description/elaboration before you get there. And I
agree, that it wasn't immediately obvious that this was a metaphor for
whoring your art. Is there a way you can draw the parallell without
feeling like you're "dumbing down" or over-explaining? Perhaps some
alternating stanzas that deal separately with the artist and separately
with the sexual aspects with the girl?
It seems like a draft of a poem to me--a beginning, but it needs a lot
more.
Personally, too, I hate narrative poetry that descends into
storytelling. Despite the unknown words, I liked that particular poem
better up to the middle, when it started to steer off into the literal
description. I don't find narrative/descriptive poetry to be po mo or
cutting edge at all--it's all a variation on confessional poetry (or
very occasionally, a variation on the "epic").
I would encourage you to keep working with that piece.
By the way, just so you can retaliate, my poetry is at:
http://pages.prodigy.net/fluffysingler
that's the URL for my poetry mag. (Anyone who reads their work in
public AND writes avant garde, surrealist, absurdist, po mo, (but NO
straightforward narrative or confessional) poetry/theatre/performance
art is eligible to submit.
My own poems are on the "poetry by Laura Winton" page.
cheers.