newbie
Jamie Parrish
My heart
i had closed the door upon my heart
and wouldn't let anyone in
i had trusted and loved only to be hurt
but that would never happen again.
i had locked the door and tossed the key
as hard and far as i could
love would never enter there again
my heart was closed for good.
then you came into my life
and made me change my mind
just when i thought that tiny key
was impossible to find.
that's when you held out your hand
and proved to me i was wrong
insisde your palm was the key to my heart
you had it all along
Mike Billard
absolutely horrible. The sentiment is so sappy and sweet I went into insulin
shock somewhere near the second stanza. It's not that this theme has been
handle this way a million times, but that it's been handled this way a
million times *today*.
--
Mike Billard
The Alsop Review
http://www.alsopreview.com
Jamie Parrish <tig...@mailhost.mil.ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:389F5B6F...@mailhost.mil.ameritech.net...
RedOmega
force it as much.
--RedOmega
Mike Billard <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:87nnib$b38$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Jamie Parrish
write more, or to at least try and fix it, but this makes me feel
useless. Let me say something as to this is one of the first I ever
wrote, and as to the topic being old I agree, but how can you not once
write about something like it?
Mike Billard
> hmmm well now, words of encouragment always make the writer want to
> write more,
My job isn't to "encourage" you. If you need to be encouraged by others to
write poetry then you haven't got the passion for the art necessary to learn
to do it well. And besides, I would *never* encourage anyone to write more
of what you've written below.
> or to at least try and fix it, but this makes me feel
> useless.
That's your problem. I didn't call *you* useless, I called your *poem* bad.
When someone trashes my poems (and that has happened countless times) I
don't suddenly lose my ability drive a car, or go to work and do my job, or
accomplish any of the other skills I've acquired. In other words, I neither
become not feel "useless". And I doubt you do, either. Again, if you don't
have the inner drive to continue writing and to fix your own work, you're in
the wrong field.
> Let me say something as to this is one of the first I ever
> wrote, and as to the topic being old I agree, but how can you not once
> write about something like it?
All topics are old. The poet should strive to make it seem new or, as a poet
said recently somewhere, make it seem *present*. How does a poet do that? By
acquainting himself with poetry and learning how it has already been done.
How much poetry have you read? You write about love, but have you read
Shakespeare's sonnets? This poem reads like rejected country music lyrics.
*That's* how tired and wornout the diction is. Feel useless? Then get to the
library and check out every poetry book they've got. The best way to quit
feeling useless is to do something useful. I'm not going to prod you, you
have to do it on your own.
Bruce Tindall
>It's not that bad, you have potential, you just got to let it flow and don't
>force it as much.
There's that word again: "flow". What the hell does it mean?
Do you mean "use fewer metrical variations" -- or "use *more*
metrical variations"? Do you mean "enjamb less" -- or "enjamb
*more*"? What *do* you mean?
--
Today is the first day of the rest of the twentieth century.
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Neil Mortimer
> That's your problem. I didn't call *you* useless, I called your *poem*
bad.
> When someone trashes my poems (and that has happened countless times) I
> don't suddenly lose my ability drive a car, or go to work and do my job,
or
> accomplish any of the other skills I've acquired. In other words, I
neither
> become not feel "useless". And I doubt you do, either. Again, if you don't
> have the inner drive to continue writing and to fix your own work, you're
in
> the wrong field.
I agree with this 100%
>
> > Let me say something as to this is one of the first I ever
> > wrote, and as to the topic being old I agree, but how can you not once
> > write about something like it?
You have every right to write as you please, for your own pleasure and
contentment, but that does not mean anybody else has any obligation to like
it. If that fact is too harsh to live with, then you've got a problem, not
anyone else.
> All topics are old. The poet should strive to make it seem new or, as a
poet
> said recently somewhere, make it seem *present*. How does a poet do that?
By
> acquainting himself with poetry and learning how it has already been done.
> How much poetry have you read? You write about love, but have you read
> Shakespeare's sonnets?
It doesn't matter if you've read the sonnets. Identify whether you are
writing for yourself, or for other people. If it is the latter, well then
you've got a market you should have in mind as every word hits the paper.
That's an awfully disgusting thought to me. If its the former, well then
there's no need to share it with people who won't appreciate it.
> This poem reads like rejected country music lyrics.
> *That's* how tired and wornout the diction is. Feel useless? Then get to
the
> library and check out every poetry book they've got.
My unpopular opinion on this, whether or not anyone cares, is entirely
unrelated to the poem in question. I'm of the mind that one has only one
obligation as a writer (or poet, as the case may be): and that is to please
yourself. Don't go to the library. All the library has is history. It
contains all that has been done, what styles and techniques there are in
existence. Make a new one for yourself. Maybe sometime down the road you'll
find that it closely matches somone else's. It doesn't matter, it is still
yours. I don't think you need to know the rules, there aren't any, really.
Do you think all the famous poets of history became what they are because
of how well they knew the history of literature? It all has to start
somewhere. Write, and write some more until -you- are happy with what you've
written. Don't worry about everyone else, or how it compares to what has
been written. Don't let other people tell you what to like. If that's the
way you do it you'll just be another creation of history, with tastes
according to the current trends.
> The best way to quit
> feeling useless is to do something useful. I'm not going to prod you, you
> have to do it on your own.
Once again, I agree 100%. If you don't have the drive, well, you don't have
it.
> --
> Mike Billard
> The Alsop Review
> http://www.alsopreview.com
Cheers,
Neil Mortimer
Mike Billard
Neil Mortimer <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sa1ij2k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
.
>
> My unpopular opinion on this, whether or not anyone cares, is entirely
> unrelated to the poem in question. I'm of the mind that one has only one
> obligation as a writer (or poet, as the case may be): and that is to
please
> yourself.
As if the poem itself has no importance in the process, eh? I'm always
amazed at how quickly and completely the idea of poet as an agent of art has
been replaced with poet as an agent of self gratification. If you want to
please yourself, go ahead. I hear there are even websites that will buy your
videotapes and polaroids. But if you want to create art, you'd better brace
yourself for some long hard work. And that includes going to the library.
But I'm getting ahead of myself in responding to your nonsense.
> Don't go to the library.
Worst advice I've ever heard.
> All the library has is history.
Bingo. Great place to learn the history of the art, don't you think?
> It
> contains all that has been done, what styles and techniques there are in
> existence. Make a new one for yourself.
And here is the flaw in your theory. Tell me how one would be capable of
making a new technique without first learning what techniques are already in
existence. Poetry does not exist in a vacuum. No poet of any worth ever
honed his skills, or created a new technique, or whatever, without cramming
his head and ears full of the poetry that came before him. Period. None.
> Maybe sometime down the road you'll
> find that it closely matches somone else's. It doesn't matter, it is still
> yours. I don't think you need to know the rules, there aren't any, really.
More ignorant rambling. Poseurs and pretenders always call up this horrible
menace, only to proclaim it doesn't exist. Funny how a beginning pianist
when instructed to practice the scales never whines that learning the rules
will stifle his creativity. Neither does the early painter when he is
instructed to practice drawing circles, or work on perspective, or whatever.
Only the wannabe poet argues that learning the basics of poetry is bad.
> Do you think all the famous poets of history became what they are because
> of how well they knew the history of literature?
Oops! I already answered this question. Absolutely! I realize that facts are
the bane of every ignorant argument, but I'm going to supply you with a few
anyway. Be careful with them, they're similar to that dreaded history you've
been staying away from libraries to avoid. John Keats, who quit school at
fifteen, translated the Aeneid just so he could study it. He also learned
Italian so he could study Dante in the latter's native language. Donald Hall
reports that Shakespeare learned more language and literature in his
Stratford grammar school than most Americans now learn in twenty years of
schooling. And Ben Johnson still looked down at Shakespeare's relative
ignorance of ancient languages. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, in his early
twenties, was nominated to chair the modern languages department at Bowdoin
College based almost completely on his translation of an ode of Horace
during his seniour year at the college. But before accepting the chair, do
you know what Longfellow did? He went to *study* in France, Spain, Italy,
and Germany. Later in his life he went to Scandanavia to study some more
before accepting a similar position at Harvard. And these few are just off
the top of my head. I could go on and on and on.
> It all has to start
> somewhere. Write, and write some more until -you- are happy with what
you've
> written. Don't worry about everyone else, or how it compares to what has
> been written. Don't let other people tell you what to like. If that's the
> way you do it you'll just be another creation of history, with tastes
> according to the current trends.
This fear that *gasp* reading poetry is going to force the beginning poet
into some cookie cutter clone is absolute nonsense. No one tells the
beginning painter "Don't you go near the art galleries! Looking at paintings
will only make you a mindless zombie, incapable of developing your own
vision!" No one tells the music student "Don't you dare listen to music! All
recordings are only the history of music and are worthless to your
development as a musician!" I wonder why not.
Chuck Lysaght
Neil Mortimer
while I was in high school. I don't have any trouble recognizing or
admitting you did an excellent job of destroying my argument. I myself am
quite nearly convinced that you are the correct one, though familiar
opinions die pretty hard.
I guess I'm not so fond of the concept that each piece of art is rooted in
an immense body of existing work, rather than in a corner of the continually
expanding consciousness of man. Why is it that one must train their skill
according to existing works, Mike? Are there really no two ways about it?
I am in no way wish to slight the incredible beauty of the many and varied
poems, paintings, photographs, sculptures, etc.. I myself have seen a good
portion of it and there is no doubt in my mind there is a great amount to be
learned from them. But I guess I've always been one for new beginnings. Just
for the possibility that something here so far unimagined may find its way
into this world through unknown channels.
--
Neil Mortimer
pink_leop...@my-deja.com
And while he is learning the elementary principles, he can still paint
whatever he likes outside of *class.* It's not either/or.
> Only the wannabe poet argues that learning the basics of poetry is
bad.
>
> > Do you think all the famous poets of history became what they are
because
> > of how well they knew the history of literature?
>
> Oops! I already answered this question. Absolutely! I realize that
facts are
> the bane of every ignorant argument,
lol
but I'm going to supply you with a few
> anyway. Be careful with them, they're similar to that dreaded history
you've
> been staying away from libraries to avoid. John Keats, who quit
school at
> fifteen, translated the Aeneid just so he could study it. He also
learned
> Italian so he could study Dante in the latter's native language.
Donald Hall
> reports that Shakespeare learned more language and literature in his
> Stratford grammar school than most Americans now learn in twenty
years of
> schooling. And Ben Johnson [sic] still looked down at Shakespeare's
relative
> ignorance of ancient languages. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, in his
early
> twenties, was nominated to chair the modern languages department at
Bowdoin
> College based almost completely on his translation of an ode of Horace
> during his senior year at the college. But before accepting the
chair, do
> you know what Longfellow did? He went to *study* in France, Spain,
Italy,
> and Germany. Later in his life he went to Scandanavia to study some
more
> before accepting a similar position at Harvard. And these few are
just off
> the top of my head. I could go on and on and on.
This is wonderful. Thank you.
Some beginning poetry writers don't want to read the great poets
because that influence might be too strong, and we might
inadvertently copy their styles, rather than struggle to develop our
own.
But if someone has the drive to write poetry, he or she will
recognize when it is time to go to the library, and begin the lifelong
process of study.
Many poetry books in libraries and stores are not worth reading.
A beginner's time would be better spent reading the Oxford
Anthologies, for instance.
Pick from them what you like and read books by that poet.
I wonder if you, Mike, have ever posted a list of some works and
authors with whom to start?
I myself am partial to The Collected Yeats, and Eliot's "Marina" and
"Ash Wednesday."
Thank you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Billard
<pink_leop...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87r9h3$1es$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <87qmrb$hl5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > Neil Mortimer <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:sa1ij2k...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> >
> horrible
> > menace, only to proclaim it doesn't exist. Funny how a beginning
> pianist
> > when instructed to practice the scales never whines that learning the
> rules
> > will stifle his creativity. Neither does the early painter when he is
> > instructed to practice drawing circles, or work on perspective, or
> whatever.
>
> And while he is learning the elementary principles, he can still paint
> whatever he likes outside of *class.* It's not either/or.
And no one said it was. Well, actually, Neil did. He advocates no learning
on the poet's part. And that is total nonsense. To believe that, one must
believe that there are no "elementary principles" to the craft of poetry.
Certainly, the painter can paint whatever he wants outside of class, but he
isn't going to be painting masterpieces in his garage while struggling with
light and shadow in class.
Bruce Tindall
>But I guess I've always been one for new beginnings. Just
>for the possibility that something here so far unimagined may find its way
>into this world through unknown channels.
And how many times has this actually happened in the past? The author
of Gilgamesh, and maybe Homer, and maybe Caedmon, came up with something
"so far unimagined" without being steeped in the literature of the past,
but for every one of those truly innovative naive geniuses, there are
dozens of true innovators whose innovations were made possible by their
knowledge of what had been written before them: the author of Beowulf,
Chaucer, Shakespeare, Whitman, cummings, and on and on, and that's just
considering English-language poets.
Spontaneous naive innovation could happen. But it's not bloody likely.
As Damon Runyon said -- alluding to a piece of old literature, by the way
-- "The battle may not be to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but
that's the way to bet."
Dancing Bear
>
>I guess I'm not so fond of the concept that each piece of art is rooted in
>an immense body of existing work, rather than in a corner of the continually
>expanding consciousness of man. Why is it that one must train their skill
Before you learn to think outside of the box, you have to know there is a box.
You can't break rules until you know what the rules are, otherwise you are
simply banging out randomly in the universe unaware of anything. If you admired
fireworks, but never took the time to learn much about how they worked, I'm
certain you could create an explosion, it might even look pretty from a
distance, BUT you'd probably like to retain the use of your arms, legs and eyes
for another try. A series of timed events in a single housing rising up over
the sky would be quite another feat.
>I am in no way wish to slight the incredible beauty of the many and varied
>poems, paintings, photographs, sculptures, etc.. I myself have seen a good
>portion of it and there is no doubt in my mind there is a great amount to be
>learned from them. But I guess I've always been one for new beginnings. Just
>for the possibility that something here so far unimagined may find its way
>into this world through unknown channels.
You've seen a great portion of it?!? Amazing. What are you, like 110 years
old? And what have you retained? I dare say that looking at fireworks in the
nightsky without knowing much more about them will not ensure your success as an
uneducated pyrotechnician.
-Dancing Bear
Editor-in-Chief, Disquieting Muses
http://www.disquietingmuses.com
Bear's Lair
http://www.hooked.net/~bear
pink_leop...@my-deja.com
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> <pink_leop...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:87r9h3$1es$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Neil Mortimer <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:sa1ij2k...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > >
> > horrible
> > > menace, only to proclaim it doesn't exist. Funny how a beginning
> > pianist
> > > when instructed to practice the scales never whines that learning
the
> > rules
> > > will stifle his creativity. Neither does the early painter when
he is
> > > instructed to practice drawing circles, or work on perspective, or
> > whatever.
> >
> > And while he is learning the elementary principles, he can still
paint
> > whatever he likes outside of *class.* It's not either/or.
>
learning
> on the poet's part. And that is total nonsense. To believe that, one
must
> believe that there are no "elementary principles" to the craft of
poetry.
> Certainly, the painter can paint whatever he wants outside of class,
but he
> isn't going to be painting masterpieces in his garage while
struggling with
> light and shadow in class.
>
> --
> Mike Billard
> The Alsop Review
> http://www.alsopreview.com
>
>
LOL! You mean such "oeuvres" are NOT masterpieces? Ha ha
I'm a beginning writer, and if I can get one line, phrase or image
that's a keeper into any "poem"; well, then, I am actually happy with
my effort, and spurred to go on.
I'm wondering if there's a deja newsgroup or an online group that
discusses a variety of famous poets and poetry. There is an excellent
group dedicated to James Joyce, but I'm looking for something eclectic
too.
Neil Mortimer
> you've
> > written. Don't worry about everyone else, or how it compares to what has
> > been written. Don't let other people tell you what to like. If that's
the
> > way you do it you'll just be another creation of history, with tastes
> > according to the current trends.
>
>
> This fear that *gasp* reading poetry is going to force the beginning poet
> into some cookie cutter clone is absolute nonsense. No one tells the
> beginning painter "Don't you go near the art galleries! Looking at
paintings
> will only make you a mindless zombie, incapable of developing your own
> vision!" No one tells the music student "Don't you dare listen to music!
All
> recordings are only the history of music and are worthless to your
> development as a musician!" I wonder why not.
The important part of what I was saying is that the final and most important
evidence that a piece is 'finished' is the writer's content. If something
isn't quite right, then it isn't the perfect reflection of the concept that
inspired you to begin with. That is why I say, write, and write some more
(revise) intil -you- are happy. That is everything that is important about
being an artist. Creating, according to your passion to create.
Neil Mortimer
news:87s030$im8$1...@panix6.panix.com...
> Neil Mortimer <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> And how many times has this actually happened in the past? The author
> of Gilgamesh, and maybe Homer, and maybe Caedmon, came up with something
> "so far unimagined" without being steeped in the literature of the past,
> but for every one of those truly innovative naive geniuses, there are
> dozens of true innovators
Everything's fine here except for the implication that these cases you refer
to, Homer, Caedmon, etc. are -not- true innovaters. Is that what you meant
to say?
> whose innovations were made possible by their
> knowledge of what had been written before them: the author of Beowulf,
> Chaucer, Shakespeare, Whitman, cummings, and on and on, and that's just
> considering English-language poets.
Yes, there are many of them. That's why it could be considered the standard
procedure for becoming a poet. However I would venture to guess the
inspiration of their writing goes beyond their life of education, too.
There's a few other ingredients to this soup.
> Spontaneous naive innovation could happen. But it's not bloody likely.
> As Damon Runyon said -- alluding to a piece of old literature, by the way
> -- "The battle may not be to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but
> that's the way to bet."
I've had a bit of time to think about this since last night, and I guess
I've re-arranged my position on it a bit. Poetry is and always will be a
form of expression. It comes from a part of us deep down that few, if any
people truly understand. Granted, there are skills that go with the craft,
like any art. But, so long as the ultimate goal is beauty, or virtuosity, or
call it what you will.. these concepts do not have to be explained to a
person. They are privately understood in their -many- forms. If there is
something truly phenomenal in somone, and they try and they try.. they will
find the right way to express it, whether or not anybody shows them their
way. Whether or not you personally want to award their efforts the shiny
badge of 'poetry' is entirely up to you. It is a personal choice, right? But
in any case, if it is, it is. And if not, why are you worrying about it
anyway?
Well, I'm done. This will be my last post in this string.. (and the scholars
rejoice)
Mike Billard
<carter...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87tdvh$iao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <sa1vu87...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Neil Mortimer" <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I won't bother responding to this point by point. I did a bit of
> debate
> > while I was in high school. I don't have any trouble recognizing or
> > admitting you did an excellent job of destroying my argument.
> > I myself am
> > quite nearly convinced that you are the correct one, though familiar
> > opinions die pretty hard.
>
> fallacies.
Show one place where my comments were incoherent. And, more importantly,
show one place where I offered a "fallacy" in my rebuttal. Speak up, Carter,
I'm dying to read one of your five thousand word ruminations explaining how
words like "love" and "child" only seem at first glance to not rhyme. Do
tell, oh verbose one.
car...@publicate.com
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> Neil Mortimer <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sa1ij2k...@corp.supernews.com...
> > My unpopular opinion on this, whether or not anyone cares,
> > is entirely
> > unrelated to the poem in question. I'm of the mind that one
> > has only one
> > obligation as a writer (or poet, as the case may be): and
> > that is to please yourself.
I tend to agree, but I think you need to develop and publish your
rationale for this view. Absent anything concrete, Mike can only guess
at what you mean, as you can see...
>
> As if the poem itself has no importance in the process, eh?
This statement, falsely worded as a question, is devoid of meaning. I
challenge Mike, or any reader, to rephrase it as a meaningful and
supportable assertion.
> I'm always
> amazed at how quickly and completely the idea of poet
> as an agent of art
Again, this is not a valid idea, it is meaningless on it's face, and
again, I challenge you to explain it in valid English phrases. Anybody
reading, feel free to chime in.
> has
> been replaced with poet as an agent of self gratification.
Now here is a valid idea, man as his own agent for his own self
gratification. To invalidate, one need only identify a single person
in recorded history who did not act as an agent for his own self
gratification.
> > Don't go to the library.
>
> Worst advice I've ever heard.
> > All the library has is history.
>
> Bingo. Great place to learn the history of the art, don't you think?
You still have not made a case why the history of art is important to
the artist. You try to make a case by implying that it has been
already made.
> > It contains all that has been done, what styles
> > and techniques there are in
> > existence. Make a new one for yourself.
>
> And here is the flaw in your theory. Tell me how one
> would be capable of
> making a new technique without first learning what
> techniques are already in
> existence.
He said 'for yourself'. So long as he created it, it doesn't matter if
it previously existed, the artist remains pure, his accomplishment
retains it's beauty, and most importantly, it continues to bring the
artist great pleasure.
> Poetry does not exist in a vacuum. No poet of any worth ever
> honed his skills, or created a new technique, or whatever,
> without cramming
> his head and ears full of the poetry that came before him.
> Period. None.
In every pocket of civilization, the first poets rose to speak. If we
consider the writer of Genesis to be a poet, most of the poetry having
been lost in the translation, who did he have as his guide? With what
did he cram his head?
He did what all great artist do, he observed the universe, and
determined that his recreation of his observation, be it poem or
sculpture or painting, novel or short story, would be whole and
sancrosanct, untouched by the impositions of another man.
The artistic achievement is a statement of who the artist is, not who
his ancestors were. They made their own statements, their own works of
art. These works were later turned into molds by lesser men, into
which they tried to fit their souls, retreating for psychological
survival to the repetitions as prayers of the meaningless pop
drivelings which made up the remains of their moral codes. Break out of
it.
> > Do you think all the famous poets of history became
> > what they are because
> > of how well they knew the history of literature?
>
> Oops! I already answered this question. Absolutely!
The 'facts' you give, of the recounting of the lives of the famous
poets who are known to have studied the history of literature, are non
sequitur to the argument. Here is the simple proof:
Millions have studied the history of literature. Only a few have
become famous. Ergo, they did not become famous *because* they studied
history, or they all would have become famous.
I believe they became famous because they wrote some beautiful poems.
<snip non sequiturs.>
> > It all has to start
> > somewhere. Write, and write some more until -you- are
> > happy with what you've
> > written. Don't worry about everyone else, or how
> > it compares to what has
> > been written. Don't let other people tell you
> > what to like. If that's the
> > way you do it you'll just be another creation
> > of history, with tastes
> > according to the current trends.
I tend to agree, and again urge a careful development of your
rationale, with an eye to an eventual rephrasing of all of this.
Now here is a case where you might use a library, for the thesaurus and
the dictionary and the rules of grammar and debate, and the stern eye
of the librarian keeping you to task.
> This fear that *gasp* reading poetry is going to
> force the beginning poet
> into some cookie cutter clone is absolute nonsense.
There was no fear expressed. Now, if we replace the word 'fear' with
'idea', and remove the gasps and burps, we have what appears to be a
statement you try to support below. However, your argument is
fallacious, to wit:
> No one tells the
> beginning painter "Don't you go near the art
> galleries! Looking at paintings
> will only make you a mindless zombie, incapable
> of developing your own vision!"
Perhaps they should. You have not made a case why they should not.
You have merely observed that they generally do not. Further, you
rephrasing uses straw man arguments.
> No one tells the music student "Don't you dare listen to music! All
> recordings are only the history of music and are worthless to your
> development as a musician!"
Perhaps they should, same rationale as above, you have made no valid
support of your statement. This appeal to the masses is a non
argument. Further, you create a straw man when you use the term
'worthless'. He never said it was worthless, only that it is not so
important as some folks have been led to believe. And he drew the
proper conclusion, that writing, for a writer, is as important as
reading, if not more so.
> I wonder why not.
Perhaps they don't know any better.
Carter Mobley
http://www.cartermobley.com
carter...@my-deja.com
"Neil Mortimer" <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> I won't bother responding to this point by point. I did a bit of
debate
> while I was in high school. I don't have any trouble recognizing or
> admitting you did an excellent job of destroying my argument.
> I myself am
> quite nearly convinced that you are the correct one, though familiar
> opinions die pretty hard.
You gave up too soon. Mike's arguments consisted of incoherencies and
fallacies. Not that you made a proud showing either. You have a
tendency to cram far too many implications into a single sentence. You
need not respond to this observation, just keep it in mind. The issues
are complex, but they are understandable, but they require careful
definition and phrasing. Here is an example:
> I guess I'm not so fond of the concept that each piece of art is
rooted in
> an immense body of existing work, rather than in a corner of the
continually
> expanding consciousness of man.
You need to expound and rephrase this, the sentence is unecessarily
complex and makes the critics job difficult. I would say this one
paragraph is deserving of perhaps a dozen paragraphs of rationale.
What is the continually expanding consciousness of man? Does such a
thing really exist?
As for the question as to whether a work of art is rooted in an immense
body of existing work, such a thing is never a great work of art, it is
a parroting, a technical exercise. Quite pretty at times, and we can
call it art, but the greatest works of art always break known molds, do
they not?
pink_leop...@my-deja.com
car...@publicate.com wrote:
> In article <87qmrb$hl5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > Neil Mortimer <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:sa1ij2k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > honed his skills, or created a new technique, or whatever,
> > without cramming
> > his head and ears full of the poetry that came before him.
> > Period. None.
>
> In every pocket of civilization, the first poets rose to speak. If we
> consider the writer of Genesis to be a poet, most of the poetry having
> been lost in the translation, who did he have as his guide?
Hundreds of years of Hebrew oral tradition
With what
> did he cram his head?
Hebrew oral history and tradition. And, having read Genesis, I'm
going to add that his head was crammed with fright.
>
> He did what all great artist[s] do, he observed the universe, and
> determined that his recreation of his observation,
I don't know enough about Genesis to agree that it has only one
writer.
I do, however, disagree that most of the poetry was lost in the
translation, and am interested in hearing how you came up with this.
be it poem or
> sculpture or painting, novel or short story, would be whole and
> sancrosanct, untouched by the impositions of another man.
Keep in mind that Genesis was tribal canon, not personal property.
> The artistic achievement is a statement of who the artist is, not who
> his ancestors were.
James Joyce wrote "Ulysses." About 3000 years earlier, men and women
singers who we call "Homer" began orally composing the work that Joyce
modeled his book on.
I'm interested in learning how you fit this example into your
hypothesis.
They made their own statements, their own works of
> art. These works were later turned into molds by lesser men, into
> which they tried to fit their souls,
> retreating for psychological
> survival to the repetitions as prayers of the meaningless pop
> drivelings which made up the remains of their moral codes.
Please explain what this means.
Break out of
> it.
<snip>
>
> Millions have studied the history of literature. Only a few have
> become famous. Ergo, they did not become famous *because* they studied
> history, or they all would have become famous.
>
> I believe they became famous because they wrote some beautiful poems.
Please name five great poets who did not study the history of
literature.
>
> <snip>
> ....Now here is a case where you might use a library, for the
>thesaurus and the dictionary
Buy good editions of each and keep them at your desk.
and the rules of grammar
Buy some good books on grammar; but you should already have good
grammar, if you're writing in your native language. After all, how
many years has one been speaking, listening and reading?
and debate,
No. Poetry is not debate! Maybe you mean read philosophy? It is a
discipline comprising at its core logic, ethics, aesthetics,
metaphysics and epistomology.
and the stern eye
> of the librarian keeping you to task.
Librarians do not care. Bring earplugs. Learn to keep yourself to
task.
Thanks.
Mikel Potts
(in message <87tdvh$iao$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
> but the greatest works of art always break known molds, do
> they not?
Give some examples, and show how they 'break the known molds,'
as opposed to building on past craft.
This appears to be the core of the argument. If you can not
present facts, then it is all rhetoric.
--
Pewter
-------------------------------
In the end, every hypochondriac
is his own prophet.
Orbit - Robert Lowell
-------------------------------
Donna Lewis (LadyStar)
not a bad thing, but if a writer of poetry wants to be published and have
other people like and enjoy his work then he/she should at least spend the
time it takes to find out what other people want to read.
The whole reason for keeping a "history" is so that we can learn from it.
Regardless of whether it is for reasons of waging war or writing poetry. If
we refuse to learn from our history then what is the use in keeping track of
it?
Showing so called genius in your chosen field of work IS knowing the
previous completed works in that field and then going beyond the set limits.
As we all know, history repeats itself and in order for that to happen
someone has to do something for the second time that has already been done.
I don't want to think that I have created something wonderful and then find
that because of my ignorance I have merely repeated something already done.
Think about it. How many times have you thought of some gadget or other that
you could really use only to find it on the market a month later? Happens to
me all the time.
DLewis
www.geocities.com/Area51/Crater/1031
<car...@publicate.com> wrote in message news:87tcq7$hfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
skye
break known molds, but the phenomenon of artists transcending previous
boundaries in order to create something significant is apparant, is it
not? such as, Duchamp's found objects, Picasso's multi-dimensional
condensed perspectives, and Pollack's drip paintings; each of these
artists "found" something beyond the ordinary, and altered how we since
"see" things in the world; they added to our expanding aesthetic
vocabulary, eh? in each instance, it is problematic at best to say that
these developments proceeded logically or necessarily from "past
craft", and so could have been inferred before their expression; after-
the-fact (so to speak), one might say, "well, of course, they were
inevitable developments and could have been predicted based on what had
occurred in sculture and painting before", but that argument would be
facetious; one can't necessarily predict the type and impact new
(different) styles and works will have in their respective fields, let
alone on society, eh? and i suppose, also, one must consider the
cultural mileiu of the time, as for instance, much performance and
conceptual art wouldn't even have the context to be considered as art
before the mid-twentieth century; and some "novel" ideas never achieve
distinction; don't forget, many well-established and academic artists
and art-critics (and collectors and gallery owners and museum
directors, et al.) severely denounced Duchamp, Picasso and Pollack at
the time for their (apparently) ridiculous pretensions; and yet, for
the most part, those "critics" names are long forgotton; and of course,
velvet paintings never achieved prominance or importance as significant
works of art, so some basic judgement about what is "special" and not
does serve some (but not infallable) purpose;
but after all, the argument is not about whether someting is rooted in
tradition, but whether it has subjective meaning (and significantly
adds something to the respective discipline), eh? as a rolled-up
manuscript with an alternative disaffected theme, "On the Road" was
subversively, even ridiculously novel, and a hard literary sell; but
the fact that it touched upon something crucial but here-to-fore
unacknowledged is incontrovertable; it "broke the mold", did it not?
how about ee cummings stylistic conventions? or the Black Mountain
College affiliated-writers' emphasis on personal experience? in fact,
every artistic/literary "school" or stylistic "form" that has a given
name to identify it as being distinct from something else (such as new
criticism, surrealism, impressionism, neo-realism, gothic, etc.) argues
that molds are continually being broken, do they not? or else,
everything would be the same, eh? for example, neo-realism cannot be
logically (or necessarily) posited from, say, post-impressionism; the
key is differentiation, and to an extent, opposition to what is already
known and even "valued"; styles, like ideas, do not exist in a vacuum;
even things that break tradition don't come out of nowhere, but they do
not necessarily (or conveniently) (or exclusively) "build" from what
has gone before;
and so;
just thot i'd add my two cents to the "craft/inspiration" dialogue;
skye
In article <01HW.B4C787FC0...@news.earthlink.net>,
Bruce Tindall
>consider the writer of Genesis to be a poet, most of the poetry having
>been lost in the translation, who did he have as his guide? With what
>did he cram his head?
>
>He did what all great artist do, he observed the universe, and
>determined that his recreation of his observation, be it poem or
>sculpture or painting, novel or short story, would be whole and
>sancrosanct, untouched by the impositions of another man.
Is there a prize for "most ludicrous blooper of the year"? I nominate
the above.
It is well-accepted that Genesis, as we now know it, is the product of
several authors and editors. It's not at all the product of one single
writer "untouched by the impositions of another man."
Sheesh. Go to the library and get an introductory book on the
history of the Torah.
Bruce Tindall
>"Bruce Tindall" <tin...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> of Gilgamesh, and maybe Homer, and maybe Caedmon, came up with something
>> "so far unimagined" without being steeped in the literature of the past,
>> but for every one of those truly innovative naive geniuses, there are
>> knowledge of what had been written before them:
>
>Everything's fine here except for the implication that these cases you refer
>to, Homer, Caedmon, etc. are -not- true innovaters. Is that what you meant
>to say?
No, everything's fine here except for your reading ability. I said
exactly what I meant to say. You misread it.
I was distinguishing between "truly innovative naive geniuses" like
the author of Gilgamesh -- what part of "innovative" don't you understand?
-- and the other "true innovators whose innovations were made possible
by their knowledge of what had been written before them," like
Shakespeare, Milton, cummings, etc. I said the poets in *both*
categories were innovators; the distinction is between innovators who
didn't have any knowledge of literary tradition (a very few) and those
who did (most of them).
>Yes, there are many of them. That's why it could be considered the standard
>procedure for becoming a poet. However I would venture to guess the
>inspiration of their writing goes beyond their life of education, too.
>There's a few other ingredients to this soup.
No one has denied that. You're trying to change the subject. You
originally advised beginning writers *not* to go to the library, *not*
to study literary history. You said that knowledge of literary tradition
was useless or worse; it was that to which I was responding, and which you
now seem to have retracted....
>Granted, there are skills that go with the craft,
>like any art. But, so long as the ultimate goal is beauty, or virtuosity, or
>call it what you will.. these concepts do not have to be explained to a
>person.
....or maybe you haven't retracted it.
Why is poetry different from, say, carpentry? Carpenters, like poets,
strive to build things of "beauty" with "virtuosity", but I don't see
many people suggesting that the best way to learn to do so is to pick up
a saw and start cutting. Sure, maybe a real genius would re-invent the
dovetail joint eventually, and so on, but it seems much more sensible
to have someone explain the known techniques to the beginner first, so
that he can either use them, reject them, or improve on them. That way
seems much more likely to produce great work than simply picking up a
saw and bumbling around with it.
>Well, I'm done. This will be my last post in this string.. (and the scholars
>rejoice)
Ah, yes, the "from-the-HEART" argument is following its tired old
standard pattern; this is, indeed, the point at which some word like
"scholars" is used as a sneer at people who actually know something
about what they're talking about. (Though on this newsgroup, "poetry
police" seems to be the preferred term.) Sorry, but not all of us agree
with the slogan of 1984's Big Brother that proclaimed "ignorance is
strength."
carter...@my-deja.com
tin...@panix.com (Bruce Tindall) wrote:
> In article <87tcq7$hfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <car...@publicate.com>
wrote:
> >consider the writer of Genesis to be a poet, most of the poetry
having
> >been lost in the translation, who did he have as his guide? With
what
> >did he cram his head?
> >
> >He did what all great artist do, he observed the universe, and
> >determined that his recreation of his observation, be it poem or
> >sculpture or painting, novel or short story, would be whole and
> >sancrosanct, untouched by the impositions of another man.
>
> the above.
>
was making, that poets have always arisen and forged their own poetry
without previous form to guide them. Notice that I made no case that
genesis was poetry, I only said 'if it was poetry', and clearly, to the
thoughtful reader, one who takes in the whole context of what he is
reading, I was refering to whoever first started laying out the story
of the creation, and usually, one assumes that such stories are written
as poetry, indeed they demand to be written as poetry.
Nevertheless, all versions of Genesis, as it made it's way to the form
we know it today (and I do not consider it in any way to be a work of
art today, thus the allusion to the idea that it has lost it's poetry
over the years.), were founded on the original poem or story, written
by a single man, his view of the universe. Perhaps this poem/story
consisted of as few as ten or twenty lines, from which other men later
may have expanded. it doens't really matter for the point I was
making, which you would have understood if you had remembered to think
before you wrote.
Carolyn W.
very well said.
i would go a bit further to say that certain molds, though they might
not logically evolve to new artistic style, can and sometimes do
*conspire* to inspire. an example, one that you mentioned, jack
kerouac's on the road. that novel was a compilation of literary
influence--joyce, dostoevsky, welles, wolfe, london, blake, rimbaud,
etc. not one past mold, but various ones. the narrative style (very
verbal "i am speaking to you", welleian), the spontaneous prose
(joycean), the adventurism (london, wolfe), the romanticism, etc. throw
in kerouac's recent influences (cassady, travel, burroughs, etc.), that
is where the shit hit the fan--and by that analogy, i mean where
several past molds and new jellos (?) came together and went
everywhere, and then were scooped up to wa-la, a new *thing*. i think
that this new "thing" was an inevitable development; though it was not
predictable.
-carolyn
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Donna Lewis (LadyStar)
"Donna Lewis (LadyStar)" <ligh...@shreve.net> wrote in message news:...
> > consider the writer of Genesis to be a poet, most of the poetry having
> > been lost in the translation, who did he have as his guide? With what
> > did he cram his head?
> >
> > He did what all great artist do, he observed the universe, and
> > determined that his recreation of his observation, be it poem or
> > sculpture or painting, novel or short story, would be whole and
> > sancrosanct, untouched by the impositions of another man.
> >
Bruce Tindall
>Nevertheless, all versions of Genesis, as it made it's
its
>way to the form
>we know it today (and I do not consider it in any way to be a work of
>art today, thus the allusion to the idea that it has lost it's poetry
>over the years.), were founded on the original poem or story, written
>by a single man, his view of the universe. Perhaps this poem/story
>consisted of as few as ten or twenty lines, from which other men later
>may have expanded.
I suppose you will post a copy of the original version? You've
seen it, have you?
Look, nobody denies that there have been a handful of ur-poets who have
come up with totally new ways of speaking or writing without having
any predecessors, or without knowing about their predecessors.
But they are extremely rare. The vast majority of poets, including
innovative poets, have known what they were innovating *from*, and
have included some part of the tradition(s) in their own work:
Shakespeare, Milton, Whitman, cummings, etc. etc. etc. And at this
late date in literary history, the chance of anyone coming up with
something new out of the blue is very slim; so much has been done before
that the "poet" who's ignorant of literary history is likely to
re-invent something that somebody else already invented five hundred
years ago. If you're hell-bent on coming up with something new,
better to know what's already been done so you don't waste time
reinventing the wheel (or the sonnet or Imagism or whatever).
pink_leop...@my-deja.com
> tin...@panix.com (Bruce Tindall) wrote:
> > In article <87tcq7$hfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <car...@publicate.com>
> wrote:
> > >consider the writer of Genesis to be a poet, most of the poetry
> having
> > >been lost in the translation, who did he have as his guide? With
> what
> > >did he cram his head?
> > >
> > >He did what all great artist do, he observed the universe, and
> > >determined that his recreation of his observation, be it poem or
> > >sculpture or painting, novel or short story, would be whole and
> > >sancrosanct, untouched by the impositions of another man.
> >
nominate
> > the above.
> >
> In your haste to speak, you fail to read, and to understand the point
Hi Carter, I hope you get a chance to read, and respond to, my
earlier post to you. Thank you in advance for your comments.
:)
I
> was making, that poets have always arisen and forged their own poetry
> without previous form to guide them. Notice that I made no case that
> genesis was poetry, I only said 'if it was poetry', and clearly, to
the
> thoughtful reader, one who takes in the whole context of what he is
> reading, I was refering to whoever first started laying out the story
> of the creation, and usually, one assumes that such stories are
written
> as poetry, indeed they demand to be written as poetry.
>
> Nevertheless, all versions of Genesis, as it made it's way to the form
> we know it today (and I do not consider it in any way to be a work of
> art today, thus the allusion to the idea that it has lost it's poetry
> over the years.), were founded on the original poem or story, written
> by a single man, his view of the universe. Perhaps this poem/story
> consisted of as few as ten or twenty lines, from which other men later
> may have expanded. it doens't really matter for the point I was
> making, which you would have understood if you had remembered to think
> before you wrote.
>
Mikel Potts
(in message <87uqqj$huk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
> styles, like ideas, do not exist in a vacuum;
> even things that break tradition don't come out of nowhere, but they do
> not necessarily (or conveniently) (or exclusively) "build" from what
> has gone before;
> and so;
I believe we have slightly different ideas of what 'break the mold'
and 'build on the past' mean, because I don't disagree with
anything you said.
My main objective was to encourage carter to use facts. He complained
about the arguments of others, but supplied no better. I was
interested in whether he could defend his position with more than
stated opinion and rhetoric.
I couldn't. My education is no where near complete enough; one of
the reasons I do not scorn the library, or learning in general.
Thank you for your fact laden response.
--
Pewter
------------------------------------------------
Sweet Science, this large riddle read me plain:
How may the death of that dull insect be
The life of yon trim Shakespear on the tree?
The Mocking Bird - Sidney Lanier
------------------------------------------------
skye
"i would go a bit further to say that certain molds, though they might
not logically evolve to new artistic style, can and sometimes do
*conspire* to inspire. an example, one that you mentioned, jack
kerouac's on the road. that novel was a compilation of literary
influence--joyce, dostoevsky, welles, wolfe, london, blake, rimbaud,
etc. not one past mold, but various ones. the narrative style (very
verbal "i am speaking to you", welleian), the spontaneous prose
(joycean), the adventurism (london, wolfe), the romanticism, etc. throw
in kerouac's recent influences (cassady, travel, burroughs, etc.), that
is where the shit hit the fan--and by that analogy, i mean where
several past molds and new jellos (?) came together and went
everywhere, and then were scooped up to wa-la, a new *thing*. i think
that this new "thing" was an inevitable development; though it was not
predictable."
-carolyn
and hemmingway's "romantic adventurism", and seeger's folk sensibility,
and whitman's poetic idealism, too, among others;
but, well, yes, certain molds "conspire to inspire" in a way, perhaps,
but isn't this just a variation of the "past achievements (tradition)
directly contribute to new (future) trends and styles" argument? it is
difficult to refute, and perhaps my argument is too subtle and
incidental to conform to a simplistic explanation, but i believe the
operative word is "necessarily"; it can be argued that many other
influences contributed to kerouac's breakthrough style, among them
various cultural/social factors such as post-war ennui, the
efflorescence of jazz, the increasing sophistication of non-mainstream
attitudes, growing popularization of non-western religious ideas,
disaffection with contemporary models of affluence/materialism, and so
on; but arguing that the beat aesthetic was "inevitable" is problematic
at best, and at the worst intolerably sophistic; many "new
developments" are (at the time) confrontational, agonistic, subversive,
and/or rebellious, in breaking through/beyond "limits" and accepted
practices/beliefs; but not ALL limits inspire further exploration; some
"molds" are dead-ends, at least from our current historical
perspective; and some (many? most?) *new* ideas/ways of
seeing/thinking/doing CANNOT be inferred/predicted from
events/beliefs/productions that preceeded them; as, the
invention/discovery of zero which modern mathematics/algebra depends
on, could not be logically or necessarily assumed based on the
simplistic counting systems in use previous to it; the mold of
"positive integers" which zero broke was paradigmatic with respect to
mathematics; and perhaps, that introduces the problem of defining what
is meant here by "molds" as opposed to a paradigm; in each instance,
the major breakthroughs of thinking/ways of doing things are often non-
linear, and even irrational; they are then less evolutionary than they
are transcendant or transformative; and too, their cultural/artistic
"value" is precisely a measure of how novel and unexpected they are in
context; the breaking of a "mold" of an aesthetic/literary practice or
"school" or theory is less encompassing than that of a paradigm shift
(sic), which alters values and ideas and perspectives across the
sociocultural spectrum to such an extent that it becomes difficult to
imagine the particulars that preceeded it; as for instance, the
hypothesized transformation during the late middle ages of the peasant
class from membership in a participatory plural identification as the
body-politic "we" of a feudal aristocracy, to the present-tense sense
of mutually-interdependant self-interested "I"s in a commonwealth (as a
result of influences from the growth of cities and towns, the shift of
power to secularized bases, increase in the power (wealth) and
influence of the merchant class, and so on); from today's perspective,
it is almost if not absolutely impossible to imagine the particulars
about how or if an individual peasant differentiated between awareness
of "self" and as a protectorate/servant of his/her lord; the then/now
"world-views" have far too few (if any) points of correspondence that
*we* can relate to/identify with;
of course, to an extent, everything can be said to contribute (in a
direct or roundabout fashion) to everything which happens later; but
this is like saying "the new development was important because it was
later seen as having important significance"; again, the issue is less
one of where/how something is "rooted" in tradition/previous
productions, than what it contributes/reveals that has objective value
and subjective meaning; in general, some (many? most?) developments
cannot be anticipated, and certainly even the degree of importance of
trends which MIGHT be partially inferred cannot be realistically known;
BUT: to return to my main point: er, what the hell is my point? ah,
yes; that new ideas/styles/conventions are not always so evolutionary
than that they are often transcendant, non-linear (even irrational)
breaks from conventions; to an extent, conventions may define the
boundaries (limits) of what is known, useful, of value, accepted, being
pragmatic etc., and so prescribe the "area" beyond as having (some,
possible) potential for exploration; BUT, as often as not, conventions
discourage new discoveries, too; a LOT of people, being told, "that's
just the way it's DONE!" never question the implicit asumption; in the
retro-pop vernacular, they are "told" the boundaries of the *box* and
never look beyond; it IS helpful to know what the boundaries are, but
NOT necessarily critical or essential; AND of course, as the wise other-
poster on this thread said, the race may not go the swift or the battle
to the strong, but they ARE the better bet (or words to that effect);
ah, nuff babblin;
skye
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:00:05 GMT skye <westx...@my-deja.com
<http://www.deja.com/profile.xp?author=westx...@my-deja.com&ST=>>
wrote:
> well, i wouldn't go so far as to say "greatest" works of art *always*
> break known molds, but the phenomenon of artists transcending previous
> boundaries in order to create something significant is apparant, is it
> not? such as, Duchamp's found objects, Picasso's multi-dimensional
> condensed perspectives, and Pollack's drip paintings; each of these
> artists "found" something beyond the ordinary, and altered how we
since
> "see" things in the world; they added to our expanding aesthetic
> vocabulary, eh? in each instance, it is problematic at best to say
that
> these developments proceeded logically or necessarily from "past
> craft", and so could have been inferred before their expression;
after-
> the-fact (so to speak), one might say, "well, of course, they were
> inevitable developments and could have been predicted based on what
had
> occurred in sculpture and painting before", but that argument would be
skye
Mikel Potts <pewt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 9:00:05 -0800, skye wrote
> (in message <87uqqj$huk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>
> > even things that break tradition don't come out of nowhere, but
they do
> > not necessarily (or conveniently) (or exclusively) "build" from what
> > has gone before;
> > and so;
>
> and 'build on the past' mean, because I don't disagree with
> anything you said.
>
> My main objective was to encourage carter to use facts. He complained
> about the arguments of others, but supplied no better. I was
> interested in whether he could defend his position with more than
> stated opinion and rhetoric.
>
> I couldn't. My education is no where near complete enough; one of
> the reasons I do not scorn the library, or learning in general.
>
> Thank you for your fact laden response.
>
> --
>
> Pewter
yeah, i sort of knew you weren't actually questioning the premise about
the value often ascribed to things that "break the mold"; but the term
itself is problematic, and i thought some description would have been
useful; from what i gather, the thread/argument about ideas proceeding
from past accomplishments in a step-like progressive manner was too
simplistic on the one hand, while the "inspiration does not require
familiarity with past achievements" argument was a bit blathering;
clearly, important (significant) new ideas/ways of thinking involve
some knowledge of what is already *known*, and
insight/effort/inspiration about what is possible that takes the
creative thought further; it is NOT, after all, an either/or
proposition;
BUT i thought the issue one of interest and worth discussing; glad you
could follow my argument;
regardz;
skye
skye
you accuse bruce tindell of a too-literal/out-of-context "reading" of
your comments in defense of the "inspiration should not be compromised
by tradition" argument, and yet your vociferous remarks exhibit the
same kind of selective nit-picking you accuse him of;
clearly, poetry (and literature in general, and art in its particulars)
do NOT occur in a sociocultural vacuum; they are all variations in the
greater dialogue of thoughts, ideas, ways of seeing, and communication
with respect to creative expression; your out-on-the-limb stance that
the poet should be "true" to his/her own self and purposefully ignorant
of the ideas/works of others in the same oeuvre/genre is ridiculously
extreme; when the specious logic of your "author of genesis" is
revealed as flawed, as indeed it had a long oral and collaborative
tradition long before the words were assembled and "codified", you
quibble about your "intent" in order to salvage some remnant of
"proof"; do you honestly fail to see how spurious and duplicitious your
reasoning is????? clearly, if YOUR familiarity with literature/art
(history) was adequate, you would not have made such a farfetched and
untenable "example"; your whole premise is an elegant testimony of the
value of having/developing a working knowledge of literature/poetry/art
in order to contribute anything meaningful to the on-going dialogue; i
mean, your vain posturings about the "thoughtful reader, one who takes
in the whole context of what he is reading" belies your ackward
reasoning, not enhanced by the archaic style of your language which
suggests pretension rather than conviction;
"it doens't really matter for the point I was making, which you would
have understood if you had remembered to think before you wrote." yeah,
right;
skye
In article <87vgm3$3c9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
carter...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <87ul84$8s5$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
> tin...@panix.com (Bruce Tindall) wrote:
> > In article <87tcq7$hfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <car...@publicate.com>
> wrote:
> > > If we
> > >consider the writer of Genesis to be a poet, most of the poetry
> having
> > >been lost in the translation, who did he have as his guide? With
> what
> > >did he cram his head?
> > >
> > >He did what all great artist do, he observed the universe, and
> > >determined that his recreation of his observation, be it poem or
> > >sculpture or painting, novel or short story, would be whole and
> > >sancrosanct, untouched by the impositions of another man.
> >
> > Is there a prize for "most ludicrous blooper of the year"? I
nominate
> > the above.
> >
> In your haste to speak, you fail to read, and to understand the point
I
> was making, that poets have always arisen and forged their own poetry
> without previous form to guide them. Notice that I made no case that
> genesis was poetry, I only said 'if it was poetry', and clearly, to
the
> thoughtful reader, one who takes in the whole context of what he is
> reading, I was refering to whoever first started laying out the story
> of the creation, and usually, one assumes that such stories are
written
> as poetry, indeed they demand to be written as poetry.
>
> Nevertheless, all versions of Genesis, as it made it's way to the form
> we know it today (and I do not consider it in any way to be a work of
> art today, thus the allusion to the idea that it has lost it's poetry
> over the years.), were founded on the original poem or story, written
> by a single man, his view of the universe. Perhaps this poem/story
> consisted of as few as ten or twenty lines, from which other men later
> may have expanded. it doens't really matter for the point I was
> making, which you would have understood if you had remembered to think
> before you wrote.
>
skye
"Neil Mortimer" <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > It all has to start
> > > somewhere. Write, and write some more until -you- are happy with
what
> > you've
> > > written. Don't worry about everyone else, or how it compares to
what has
> > > been written. Don't let other people tell you what to like. If
that's
> the
> > > way you do it you'll just be another creation of history, with
tastes
> > > according to the current trends.
> >
> >
beginning poet
> > beginning painter "Don't you go near the art galleries! Looking at
> paintings
> > will only make you a mindless zombie, incapable of developing your
own
music!
> All
> > recordings are only the history of music and are worthless to your
>
> The important part of what I was saying is that the final and most
important
> evidence that a piece is 'finished' is the writer's content. If
something
> isn't quite right, then it isn't the perfect reflection of the
concept that
> inspired you to begin with. That is why I say, write, and write some
more
> (revise) intil -you- are happy. That is everything that is important
about
> being an artist. Creating, according to your passion to create.
>
bit about being true to one's own convictions, but the whole thread
revolves around the issue of context and NOT about being coerced or
bamboozled into parodying some pre-existing "form" or "style"; the
dialogue here (on this forum, and elsewhere, in the form of critical
feedback) is designed less to force accomodation to/acceptance of a
particular *mindset* than to stimulate thought and provoke discussion
about whether a writer's ideas "work" as intended; your comment "The
important part of what I was saying is that the final and most important
meaningful analysis; i suspect you are inferring (by the comment which
follows that above) that the writer's original intent/inspiration is
"perfect", and if the writing doesn't "work", then the author has
failed to implement/effect the "perfect reflection" accurately; an
extremely Platoist stance; you assume the original intent, or "vision",
or inspiration, is somehow complete and *excellant*, which it is then
the disciplined/motivated poet's "duty" or "task" to convey, like a
transcription; it is a terribly romantic and idealistic premise, and
ultimately untenable since it appears to assume the original idea
springs forth (from some obscure point of origin) ready-made in the
mind, and merely needs to be placed on "paper" as-it-were; this is the
antithesis of the "writing is deliberate craft" argument, isn't it?
this notion of poetry as a type of "utopian product" is quite bizarre,
ignoring as it does the way the mind apprehends itself and the world,
and how cultural signifiers/productions continually refine/influence
our ideas; your theory of how poetry is (or "should" be) created is
based on the "reveled prophecy" model; i cannot find any basis for such
a premise beyond that of an affected posturing of the properly
attenuated genius;
even spontaneous prose or the "spontaneously-written" *poem* is the
result of a deliberate (if mostly-subconscious) grappling with ideas
and feelings;
regardz;
skye
carter...@my-deja.com
pink_leop...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <87tcq7$hfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> car...@publicate.com wrote:
> > "Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Neil Mortimer <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:sa1ij2k...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > honed his skills, or created a new technique, or whatever,
> > > without cramming
> > > his head and ears full of the poetry that came before him.
> > > Period. None.
> >
> > In every pocket of civilization, the first poets rose to speak. If
we
> > consider the writer of Genesis to be a poet, most of the poetry
having
> > been lost in the translation, who did he have as his guide?
>
The term 'writer of Genesis' encompasses far too many people, as you
and others have pointed out. Perhaps, for my example, I should have
made reference to the specific person who formulated the basic ides of
the creation story in the first dozen verses of Genesis.
> I don't know enough about Genesis to agree that it has only one
> writer.
> I do, however, disagree that most of the poetry was lost in the
> translation, and am interested in hearing how you came up with this.
I suppose we could find poetry in the Declaration of Independence, and
the Preamble to the Constitution as well. The process of condensing
the language of political ideas to it's essential components can be
considered an art form. So I suppose we can consider the present form
of the creation story as a work of art, a carving out of an enormous
tree trunk, a generational collaboration of sculptors whittling it down
over the years.
> James Joyce wrote "Ulysses." About 3000 years earlier, men and women
> singers who we call "Homer" began orally composing the work that Joyce
> modeled his book on.
> I'm interested in learning how you fit this example into your
> hypothesis.
'Ulysses' is by no means constrained to form, although hung, as it
were, on a cross. Is this Joyce's message? Is James Joyce none other
than Ulysses, bound to the mast of the Odessey, the book itself a ship,
now a ghost ship, passages of poetry and prose as a multitude of
tattered sheets and sails, passing straight through time amongst the
islands of all generations? What a pretty book, a vessel, and if he is
indeed tied there, we the sirens of this generation, should sing well
of his exploits, as well as of our own, the hearing of which might be
his only chance for joy.
I think the morass of words and styles are not important, nor is the
story itself, except that they serve as the waves which carry the book
forward, on the sea of each generations student body and their
teachers, most of then lost in the romance of the richness of it's
mysteries, codes, and ciphers, totally oblivious to the artist himself,
sailing on by, the breeze wafting a nectar of gin, and dry vermouth.
What else can I do but raise my glass in the shocked realization that I
have quite a mountain to climb before I can exceed such a thing. By
understanding his work, perhaps I have become equal with half of it.
> They made their own statements, their own works of
> > art. These works were later turned into molds by lesser men, into
> > which they tried to fit their souls,
>
> > retreating for psychological
> > survival to the repetitions as prayers of the meaningless pop
> > drivelings which made up the remains of their moral codes.
>
> Please explain what this means.
Should I give up, in the face of 'Ulysses?' Should I reckon that the
best I can ever do is come close to it? Shall it become a god,
unexceedable?
If I am to exceed it, I must first meet it. I will meet it, that is for
certain, or die on the rise to it. Is there another way to live? Is
not any other form merely a journey toward death?
So I dare not constrain myself to any form. I must, like Joyce,
observe the universe, take it's components, among which may be an
already existant work of art, and re-create a new form.
> Break out of
> > it.
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Millions have studied the history of literature. Only a few have
> > become famous. Ergo, they did not become famous *because* they
studied
> > history, or they all would have become famous.
> >
> > I believe they became famous because they wrote some beautiful
poems.
>
> Please name five great poets who did not study the history of
> literature.
> >
In order to do that, I would have to study the history of literature,
an expedition for which I have not yet had the opportunity, and
probably never will. Your leading me down the garden path to 'Ulysses'
today is greatly appreciated.
saFire New York
ewatkins...@wistar.upenn.edu.invalid
you write because you like to, not for other's acknowlegement
or for vanity. Keep it up!
In some ways not a totally erroneous tenet. Afterall, didn't
Whitman write - "If everyone praises me, I rest content - If no
one praises me, I rest content - (misremembered, but the gist is
there).
Of course we shouldn't require corroboration for each of our
actions; but, considering your beliefs, why would you bother to
offer this person support? Self-serving vanity disguised as
compassion, rooted in a profound uncertainty of your own
convictions?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Carolyn W.
that was coherent, interesting "babblage," but if you're trying to
debate, at least let's get the semantics straight. ;)
since when does acknowledging an author's influences imply that that
the author's own work is a predictable result in some linear
progression? since when does acknowledging the necessity and
inevibility of change imply that one can infer *how* things will
change? i never said, nor implied, these things. in fact, i totally
agree with you about the idea that evolution in any form (language,
art, biological continuance, etc.) is not linear, is not progressive,
and is not predictable.
i was *just* trying to give more credit to historical influences where
credit is due, in kerouac's case (not "traditional" influences: that
implies a temporal rootedness in rigid likemindedness, whereas most of
kerouac's "predecessors" were breakthrough artists, to an extent, in
their own right). the reason i spoke up in the first place is because
there are myths surrounding kerouac, and in *general* people don't
understand that he wasn't someone who wrote a book in three weeks, out
of the blue, due to his own separate and unique and unthought-of-before
ideas. it just didn't happen that way. his three-week version of "on
the road" was a third version of the book, not the first. his
"spontaneous prose" wasn't a new style either, and went through much
revision, actually, before being published. he spent years reading and
studying authors like joyce, blake, rimbaud, wolfe, dostoevsky (there
are too many to mention)--and these had a profound effect on him
(kerouac was elaborately passionate about authors he liked), and they
did play a major role in and help shape his writings.
he was writing plays based on welles' narrative form, adventure stories
based on wolfe's style, etc. when he was age 13. is it a surprise that
"on the road" came out of this mind? no. but that doesn't mean that the
fact that he wrote such a revolutionary book could have been predicted
with a high degree of certainty. it would be a jump to conclude such a
thing.
-carolyn
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:03:29 GMT skye <westx...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> hey carolyn;
--
skye
"i think that this new "thing" was an inevitable development; though it
was not predictable." (carolyn)
sorry; i didn't mean to come across as if i was "debating" the issue,
but perhaps at some level such is the result;
the thread consisted of a "craft vs. inspiration" debate; my comments
were directed towards making the either/or polarity more polyvalent,
specifically with respect to illustrating the problem with defining
uneqivocal causal influences, and especially by arguing that
antecedants do not necessarily, logically, or imperatively "lead" to
certain conclusions, or "new ideas";
your comment above is perhaps too subtle for my *getting it*; if
something is inevitable, then, by definition, isn't it predictable?
whereas, my argument is that SOME (many? most?) "new"
developments/trends in the arts cannot be so readily inferred based on
present/past productions; as you recall, in previous comments, i said
that (or words to the effect) after-the-fact, one can "claim" such-and-
such *would* have happened, but this is a tenuous conclusion at best;
how can one know, in advance, that, say, impressionism would have
achieved prominence as a stylistic convention when it did, or,
perhaps more importantly, to the DEGREE that it did? after-the-fact,
one can analyze the various factors of, say, the cultural state-of-
affairs, the competing agendas of greco-roman classicism, the impact of
the developing technology of photography on the visual arts, increasing
cultural exchange with the orient, and the rigid academic formalism
which largely set the standards for high art at the time, and logically
"see" that tensions and forces were setting up the dynamics for a new
style to emerge which challenged orthodoxy and offered a greater avenue
for exploration/expression than what had previously been accepted;
but, the phenomenon of "impressionism" as a new and exciting style
could NOT have been reasonably predicted, nor was it necessarily
"inevitable", was it?
it is problematic at best to determine from "where" and "why" new and
important artistic ideas extend; the process is often extremely
subjective and due to a multitude of influences and as the result of
often obscure reactions; it is typically NOT a distinctly rational or
clearly linear progression; THAT was the crux of my debate; detailing
the "whats" of the creative process is confounded by the incredible
complexity of the human brain; mobley's and mortimer's claim that
immersing oneself in the (historical) creative mileui is
counterproductive and somehow "compromises" the writer's/poets work is
quite ludicrous, as mobley's out-on-the-limb extreme genesis example
eloquently demonstrates the value of having an adequate familiarity
with what artists/writers have created;
and as for semantics, i am "open" for clarification;
i don't dispute the evident "fact" that keruoac's work reflects many
literary (as well as social and cultural) influences; but given those
influences, is it reasonable to infer that kerouac's work was
"inevitable"? i don't think so; this overly simplifies the issue of
"how" creative works happen; your comment that molds "conspire to
inspire" is a poetic allusion, and thus resists a logical refutation;
is this the semantic difficulty (i have) that you allude to?
"i was *just* trying to give more credit to historical influences where
credit is due, in kerouac's case (not "traditional" influences: that
implies a temporal rootedness in rigid likemindedness, whereas most of
kerouac's "predecessors" were breakthrough artists, to an extent, in
their own right). the reason i spoke up in the first place is because
there are myths surrounding kerouac, and in *general* people don't
understand that he wasn't someone who wrote a book in three weeks, out
of the blue, due to his own separate and unique and unthought-of-before
ideas." (carolyn)
well, okay, fine; but i wasn't perpetuating any myths about kerouac,
was i? so i wasn't necesarily disagreeing with you either; but your
premise that his work was "inevitable" trivializes his role as the
writer, doesn't it? and i feel the writer is more crucial than the net-
effect causal-agent of cultural/literary influences;
ah, nuff babblin (again!)
regardz;
skye
carter...@my-deja.com
skye <westx...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> oh for crying out loud;
Am I to presume you have been wailing since birth, your study of
literature having left you strangely devoid of the punctuation mark
known as "the period?" If one were to write out the wailing of a
child, one would have to use semi-colons in place of periods, the child
is not likely to stop until he gets his milk, that event choking off
any chance for a period. Indeed, we know it is but a matter of time
before the wailing for one's own way sings out again in the night, and
thus there is no better mark than the semicolon for the wail of the
child. I don't mean to be rude, but I think this is an accurate if
amusing characterization of your style of debate, eerily heralded in
your statement above.
> you accuse bruce tindell of a too-literal/out-of-context "reading" of
> your comments in defense of the "inspiration should not be compromised
> by tradition" argument, and yet your vociferous remarks exhibit the
> same kind of selective nit-picking you accuse him of;
Not at all, note that I said "If we consider the writer of Genesis to
be a poet..." Nobody has to agree with the 'if' there. I never
declared that I thought the writer of the entire book of genesis to be
a single person. I could have written this more clearly.
>
> clearly, poetry (and literature in general, and art in its
particulars)
> do NOT occur in a sociocultural vacuum; they are all variations in the
> greater dialogue of thoughts, ideas, ways of seeing, and communication
> with respect to creative expression; your out-on-the-limb stance that
> the poet should be "true" to his/her own self and purposefully
ignorant
> of the ideas/works of others in the same oeuvre/genre is ridiculously
> extreme;
'
I do not think I promulgated such a stance, and I certainly do not
advocate a purposeful ignorance of the history of literature. The
debate here centered around what was of more benefit to the
prospective poet, writing or reading, and my argument is that there is
too much emphasis placed on reading in this forum, and not enough on
writing. And from that point of contention, we have evolved this
splendid discussion, every branch of which seems to support my view.
Case in point the eerily predestined-like interjection of a discussion
of Joyce's "Ulysses" elsewhere in this thread. Please weigh in with
your response there if you have the time. Here, take these periods
along with you in case you need them: ...............
> when the specious logic of your "author of genesis"
You are misquoting me here.........
> revealed as flawed, as indeed it had a long oral and collaborative
> tradition long before the words were assembled and "codified", you
> quibble about your "intent" in order to salvage some remnant of
> "proof"; do you honestly fail to see how spurious and duplicitious
your
> reasoning is?????
So, I see that all of your periods have turned into question marks,
they are falling out the eaves and multiplying like rabbits right
before our eyes. Do you not see how weak your own argument feels to
even you, as evidenced by your having to add a few ad absurdem question
marks in an effort to lend it some weight? You are misquoting me,
first of all, and secondly, you are deliberatley ignoring the 'if we
consider..' preamble. If you don't agree with the 'if', fine, but if
you want to add substance to the debate, then of course you must
simplify the example, and consider the writer of some small passage of
genesis as a first poet. I should not have to do this for you.
> clearly, if YOUR familiarity with literature/art
> (history) was adequate, you would not have made such a farfetched and
> untenable "example";
Whereas if your familiarity with your language was adequate, you would
have remembered to look up the word 'if' in the dictionary, and not
have become trapped by Tindalls irrational objection.
> your whole premise is an elegant testimony of the
> value of having/developing a working knowledge of
literature/poetry/art
> in order to contribute anything meaningful to the on-going dialogue;
Your whole argument is empty, as demonstrated above.
> i
> mean, your vain posturings about the "thoughtful reader, one who takes
> in the whole context of what he is reading" belies your ackward
> reasoning, not enhanced by the archaic style of your language which
> suggests pretension rather than conviction;
False, as shown above. I presume the thoughtful reader would have
understood the 'if' portion of my statement. Indeed, many of them did,
only a few became trapped, you and Tindall for example. Here are some
more periods, happy valentines day.................
saFire New York
pink_leop...@my-deja.com
carter...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <87u1ap$vo8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> pink_leop...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <87tcq7$hfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > car...@publicate.com wrote:
> > James Joyce wrote "Ulysses." About 3000 years earlier, men and
women
> > singers who we call "Homer" began orally composing the work that
Joyce
> > modeled his book on.
> > I'm interested in learning how you fit this example into your
> > hypothesis.
>
> 'Ulysses' is by no means constrained to form, although hung, as it
> were, on a cross. Is this Joyce's message? Is James Joyce none other
> than Ulysses, bound to the mast of the Odessey, the book itself a
ship,
> now a ghost ship, passages of poetry and prose as a multitude of
> tattered sheets and sails, passing straight through time amongst the
> islands of all generations? What a pretty book, a vessel, and if he is
> indeed tied there, we the sirens of this generation, should sing well
> of his exploits, as well as of our own, the hearing of which might be
> his only chance for joy.
Now I recall from where I know you. "The Judgement of Nine."
<smile>. The memorable bears.
>
> I think the morass of words and styles are not important, nor is the
> story itself, except that they serve as the waves which carry the book
> forward, on the sea of each generations student body and their
> teachers, most of then lost in the romance of the richness of it's
> mysteries, codes, and ciphers, totally oblivious to the artist
himself,
> sailing on by, the breeze wafting a nectar of gin, and dry vermouth.
>
> What else can I do but raise my glass in the shocked realization that
I
> have quite a mountain to climb before I can exceed such a thing. By
> understanding his work, perhaps I have become equal with half of it.
>
> > They made their own statements, their own works of
> > > art. These works were later turned into molds by lesser men, into
> > > which they tried to fit their souls,
> >
> > > retreating for psychological
> > > survival to the repetitions as prayers of the meaningless pop
> > > drivelings which made up the remains of their moral codes.
> >
> > Please explain what this means.
>
> Should I give up, in the face of 'Ulysses?' Should I reckon that the
> best I can ever do is come close to it? Shall it become a god,
> unexceedable?
>
> If I am to exceed it, I must first meet it. I will meet it, that is
for
> certain, or die on the rise to it. Is there another way to live? Is
> not any other form merely a journey toward death?
>
> So I dare not constrain myself to any form. I must, like Joyce,
> observe the universe, take it's components, among which may be an
> already existant work of art, and re-create a new form.
>
> > Break out of
> > > it.
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Millions have studied the history of literature. Only a few have
> > > become famous. Ergo, they did not become famous *because* they
> studied
> > > history, or they all would have become famous.
> > >
> > > I believe they became famous because they wrote some beautiful
> poems.
> >
> > Please name five great poets who did not study the history of
> > literature.
> > >
>
> In order to do that, I would have to study the history of literature,
> an expedition for which I have not yet had the opportunity, and
> probably never will.
The Oxford anthologies are {or were, in my college days} a wonderful
resource. They give a little history for each poet, and place him
{sometimes her} in context. I loved their two-volume History of
English Lit.
Maybe you can take one class each semester; wouldn't that be great?
I'm thinking of going back...review of elementary French,...
Your leading me down the garden path to 'Ulysses'
> today is greatly appreciated.
As are your replies. Thank you.
>
> Carter Mobley
> http://www.cartermobley.com
The FAQ at alt.books.james-joyce has incredible links.
Neil Mortimer
> important
> > evidence that a piece is 'finished' is the writer's content. If
> something
> > isn't quite right, then it isn't the perfect reflection of the
> concept that
> > inspired you to begin with. That is why I say, write, and write some
> more
> > (revise) intil -you- are happy. That is everything that is important
> about
> > being an artist. Creating, according to your passion to create.
> >
> you honestly can't see how flawed your reasoning is? yes, i *get* the
> bit about being true to one's own convictions, but the whole thread
> revolves around the issue of context and NOT about being coerced or
> bamboozled into parodying some pre-existing "form" or "style"; the
> dialogue here (on this forum, and elsewhere, in the form of critical
> feedback) is designed less to force accomodation to/acceptance of a
> particular *mindset* than to stimulate thought and provoke discussion
> about whether a writer's ideas "work" as intended;
I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say here. The whole
thread revolves around the issue of context... Not about being coerced into
parodying some pre-existing form... Yes I know. Are you just pointing out
that this is a possibly unrelated tangent or is there something else? I
haven't said a word about what I think this NG is about, so is the rest of
this implying that I am trying to pass my opinions as ultimate and
unrefutable truth?
> your comment "The
> important part of what I was saying is that the final and most important
> evidence that a piece is 'finished' is the writer's content." defies
> meaningful analysis; i suspect you are inferring (by the comment which
> follows that above) that the writer's original intent/inspiration is
> "perfect" and if the writing doesn't "work", then the author has
> failed to implement/effect the "perfect reflection" accurately; an
> extremely Platoist stance; you assume the original intent, or "vision",
> or inspiration, is somehow complete and *excellant*, which it is then
> the disciplined/motivated poet's "duty" or "task" to convey, like a
> transcription;
This is not my opinion/assumption, see below.
> it is a terribly romantic and idealistic premise, and
> ultimately untenable since it appears to assume the original idea
> springs forth (from some obscure point of origin) ready-made in the
> mind, and merely needs to be placed on "paper" as-it-were; this is the
> antithesis of the "writing is deliberate craft" argument, isn't it?
> this notion of poetry as a type of "utopian product" is quite bizarre,
> ignoring as it does the way the mind apprehends itself and the world,
> and how cultural signifiers/productions continually refine/influence
> our ideas; your theory of how poetry is (or "should" be) created is
> based on the "reveled prophecy" model; i cannot find any basis for such
> a premise beyond that of an affected posturing of the properly
> attenuated genius; even spontaneous prose or the "spontaneously-written"
*poem* is the
> result of a deliberate (if mostly-subconscious) grappling with ideas
> and feelings;
> regardz;
> skye
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
(how do you mean 'affected posturing of the properly attenuated genius'? Did
you mean something like 'attained genius'? I'm missing something here.
Attenuated genius is a rather confusing oxymoron, especially in this
context.)
Evidently I have not done a very good job of explaining my point of view on
this matter. In no way do I wish to imply that within each poet is
perfection waiting to be expressed in a flow of perfect words (nor did I
ever say as Mike implied that poetry requires no learning). This just isn't
it. But, when the words before you are in perfect harmony with the idea you
set to lay in the poem (however many years it takes), you are done writing.
Maybe you re-started it a thousand three times and asked hundreds of people
to comment on what you had, but until there is that content, it is not
finished. When it finally is, it will not be perfect. Man is not capable of
perfection.. it is like infinity, a nearly inconceivable concept that
expands (is expanding) beyond our ability. But however shy of perfection, it
is a finished poem. A finished work of art, according to one poet, however
unappreciated.
Poetry does come from an obscure origin, as I see it. Yes, there are
fascinating word gestures, and there are clever facets that wit works to
weave into the concept, but that doesn't explain to me the origin of a poem.
I wouldn't, for this reason, call poetry a purely 'deliberate' in its
conception. There's more... I just can't find the words to say exactly what.
Maybe this is just a very basic concept that I'm struggling with due to a
murky concept of reality and of the 'common and understandable' nature of
mind, but I do marvel at the process of art's creation with only a glimmer
of understanding which I've tried (however unsuccessfully) to put into words
just now.
Fine, its a very romantic and idealistic premise.. I'm a very romantic and
idealistic person. I don't think that makes me naturally incorrect, but you
undoubtedly have your own opinion on that.
caryl pinoak
<pink_leop...@my-deja.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
883cb6$r0j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <881nkd$mjb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> carter...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <87u1ap$vo8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > pink_leop...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <87tcq7$hfu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > car...@publicate.com wrote:
the update of the news, and I hate bothering people again and agein with my
electronic mess.
>
> >lost in the romance of the richness of it's
> > mysteries, codes, and ciphers, totally oblivious to the artist
> himself,
> > sailing on by, the breeze wafting a nectar of gin, and dry vermouth.
That's a deep truth. When a poem is born it's no longer the poet's baby. It
belongs to the language itself. How does that go: "What's every body's..."?
That's why IMHO a poem should, unlike prose, leave the interpreation to the
reader. The "What does it mean?" should first of all be a "What does it mean
to me?"
> > > > I believe they became famous because they wrote some beautiful
> > poems.
Sometimes, in spite of their studies;-)
> The Oxford anthologies are {or were, in my college days} a wonderful
> resource.
It is.
> I'm thinking of going back...review of elementary French,...
The best way is to go to France, first, and to the libraries after. If
you're not too far away from Calais I could possibly offer you some
"vacancy".
Cheers,
caryl
skye
"Neil Mortimer" <neilmo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > The important part of what I was saying is that the final and most
> > important
> > > evidence that a piece is 'finished' is the writer's content. If
> > something
> > > isn't quite right, then it isn't the perfect reflection of the
> > concept that
> > > inspired you to begin with. That is why I say, write, and write
some
> > more
> > > (revise) intil -you- are happy. That is everything that is
important
> > about
> > > being an artist. Creating, according to your passion to create.
hey neil;
well, maybe i read more into your comments than you intended; i just
wanted to comment on the "creation in isolation" stand which was
suggested; the "perfect reflection of the concept that inspired you" is
Platoist, isn't it? the "ideal form" and all that; i made the
assumption this was an absolutist position; sorry;
>
> I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say here. The
whole
> thread revolves around the issue of context... Not about being
coerced into
> parodying some pre-existing form... Yes I know. Are you just pointing
out
> that this is a possibly unrelated tangent or is there something else?
I
> haven't said a word about what I think this NG is about, so is the
rest of
> this implying that I am trying to pass my opinions as ultimate and
> unrefutable truth?
no, of course not; i disagreed with the "writing is everything"
argument as being much too simplistic and ultimately, unable to account
for the actual complex process of consideration, reflection, and
grappling with words/concepts, which includes feedback and discussion
within the greater context of writing as an artistic dialogue;
>
> > your comment "The
> > important part of what I was saying is that the final and most
important
> > evidence that a piece is 'finished' is the writer's content." defies
> > meaningful analysis; i suspect you are inferring (by the comment
which
> > follows that above) that the writer's original intent/inspiration is
> > "perfect" and if the writing doesn't "work", then the author has
> > failed to implement/effect the "perfect reflection" accurately; an
> > extremely Platoist stance; you assume the original intent, or
"vision",
> > or inspiration, is somehow complete and *excellant*, which it is
then
> > the disciplined/motivated poet's "duty" or "task" to convey, like a
> > transcription;
>
> This is not my opinion/assumption, see below.
ok; i misunderstood your point;
>
>
> (how do you mean 'affected posturing of the properly attenuated
genius'? Did
> you mean something like 'attained genius'? I'm missing something here.
> Attenuated genius is a rather confusing oxymoron, especially in this
> context.)
no; "attenuated" as in being tuned in, resonating with, the "ideal"
perceived in the mind, in order to reproduce it; the "affected
posturing" was my term for that type of idealistic attitude;
but well, i concede that awareness has much to do with creativity, and
that it is problematic to determine how awareness occurs or what it
involves; perhaps i have overextended my argument here, as apparently
your stand is much less extreme than i had thought; sorry to attribute
ideas to you not in evidence;
>
> Evidently I have not done a very good job of explaining my point of
> view on this matter.
yeah, well maybe i just didn't read as carefully as i should;
> In no way do I wish to imply that within each poet is
> perfection waiting to be expressed in a flow of perfect words (nor
did I
> ever say as Mike implied that poetry requires no learning). This just
isn't
> it. But, when the words before you are in perfect harmony with the
idea you
> set to lay in the poem (however many years it takes), you are done
writing.
BUT: this i just don't *get* or agree with; i suppose, because i don't
think the "ideal" (in the form of writing) is in the mind, but in the
actual world AS THE RESULT of having to define and refine it; i see the
"product" as a result of a self-conscious and deliberate process that
involves all the aspects of our personality, education, experience,
skill, effort and so forth; AND i don't necessarily "see" that the
writing (or art-making) is ever really "done"; it isn't done if it has
an effect in the world and influences something else to happen, becomes
part of the ongoing dialogue in the arts; anyway, does SOMETHING; it's
a bit different than ordinary tangible things because they have an
abstract value; but perhaps i belabor the obvious, merely taking your
inelegant expression to pointless task;
i guess i just don't understand your point well enough to say; but hey,
who am i to say anyway?
skye
> Am I to presume you have been wailing since birth, your study of
> literature having left you strangely devoid of the punctuation mark
> known as "the period?"
no; apparently i *do it* here to irritate folks like you who "presume"
too much; i would explain my quirky style if it made any difference,
but in light of your grammatical conceit, why should i bother?
> I don't mean to be rude, but I think this is an accurate if
> amusing characterization of your style of debate, eerily heralded in
> your statement above.
fair enough; as your red-herring argument with my punctuation style in
order to deflect my point is an *eerie herald* of yours?
> > you accuse bruce tindell of a too-literal/out-of-context "reading"
of
> > your comments in defense of the "inspiration should not be
compromised
> > by tradition" argument, and yet your vociferous remarks exhibit the
> > same kind of selective nit-picking you accuse him of;
>
> Not at all, note that I said "If we consider the writer of Genesis to
> be a poet..."
so; you deliberately misconstrue what *i* said as a refutation? is this
supposed to be clever? isn't that a variation of the straw man
argument? your statement above alludes to the hypothesis that the
"writer" of genesis was a poet, doesn't it? but genesis wasn't written
by a single person, poet or not; it grew out of a hebrew oral
tradition, in which many voices were the first "author"; is english
your second, third, or fourth language? you clearly said "writer of
genesis", didn't you? or did you perhaps mean, "if we consider the
original orators of the genesis myth/fable to be spoken-word poets in
the ancient hebraic tradition"? then, your point being? that *they* had
no poetic "context" from which to determine the appropriate form that
*poetry* should take and that, ultimately, there are no universal (or
absolute) conventions for the poetic form? which, actually, (and to a
point) i agree with;
> Nobody has to agree with the 'if' there. I never
> declared that I thought the writer of the entire book of genesis to be
> a single person. I could have written this more clearly.
duh, yeah; like, maybe in the form of a relevant example? the "writer
of genesis" bit really threw me; sounded pretty declarative to me; but
hey, whatta i know, ennyway, right?
> >
> > clearly, poetry (and literature in general, and art in its
> particulars)
> > do NOT occur in a sociocultural vacuum; they are all variations in
the
> > greater dialogue of thoughts, ideas, ways of seeing, and
communication
> > with respect to creative expression; your out-on-the-limb stance
that
> > the poet should be "true" to his/her own self and purposefully
> ignorant
> > of the ideas/works of others in the same oeuvre/genre is
ridiculously
> > extreme;
> '
> I do not think I promulgated such a stance, and I certainly do not
> advocate a purposeful ignorance of the history of literature.
that's refreshing; i certainly didn't get that impression from reading
your comments; maybe my reading was less careful than it should have
been; in which case, i apologize for attributing such a position to you;
> The debate here centered around what was of more benefit to the
> prospective poet, writing or reading, and my argument is that there is
> too much emphasis placed on reading in this forum, and not enough on
> writing. And from that point of contention, we have evolved this
> splendid discussion, every branch of which seems to support my view.
uh, right; in another part of this thread, i attempted to debunk the
absurdity of the either/or craft/inspiration debate; similiarly,
reading and writing are essentially symbiotic, and to say that one is
more important than the other is problematic at best, and ridiculous if
not counterproductive at best; elsewhere, i thought you advocated a
relative isolation from the work of other artists in order not to be
unduly influenced by them; was this inaccurate on my part? in any
event, i took your argument to be "for* creative purity, in which
history should take no part; sorry if i misunderstood what you meant;
as to whether an undue emphasis here on the ng (by some folks,
apparently) is placed on reading over writing, based on my reading of a
representative sampling of posts here over a year, some dedicated and
disciplined reading by many "writers" sounds like damn good advice;
> Case in point the eerily predestined-like interjection of a discussion
> of Joyce's "Ulysses" elsewhere in this thread. Please weigh in with
> your response there if you have the time. Here, take these periods
> along with you in case you need them: ...............
uh; i don't have much of an opinion about "ulysses", but thanks for the
invite; and thanks for the period offer, but i have a surplus; here,
have some of mine, you're more in danger of running out of them than i,
eh? oh, go on, i insist:
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
.............................................
if you need more, just lemme know;
>
> > when the specious logic of your "author of genesis"
>
> You are misquoting me here.........
excuse me, it was not a "quote"; to rephrase, then: your spurious
(hypothetical) example of the *author of genesis*:
>
> So, I see that all of your periods have turned into question marks,
> they are falling out the eaves and multiplying like rabbits right
> before our eyes. Do you not see how weak your own argument feels to
> even you, as evidenced by your having to add a few ad absurdem
question
> marks in an effort to lend it some weight? You are misquoting me,
> first of all, and secondly, you are deliberatley ignoring the 'if we
> consider..' preamble.
what eaves? rabbits? wha?
look, it was an absurd example; my question didn't "need" question
marks to give it *weight*; and i didn't deliberately ignore the "if. .
." preamble, as answered above; i ascribed to it the relevant
qualification as indicated by its useage and context;
> If you don't agree with the 'if', fine, but if
> you want to add substance to the debate, then of course you must
> simplify the example, and consider the writer of some small passage of
> genesis as a first poet. I should not have to do this for you.
>
well, if it's your example, you would want to make it clear and
understandable and relevant, eh? i will go farther than your
hypothetical example, however, and stipulate that the first
neanderthals and proto-humans grunted and squealed, delighting in the
sounds they produced to entertain each other and provide auditory
pleasure; *poetry* can and does involve a pleasure with sounds (not
quibbling here with whether they need to be "words" as such); so, the
point then being? the first "poets" had no tradition to define what was
acceptable and appropriate? and so, likewise, successive *poets* do not
need to, indeed should not be concerned, with knowing how and why their
works refer to/relate to the greater body of creative productions? is
this the crux of your *argument*?
> > clearly, if YOUR familiarity with literature/art
> > (history) was adequate, you would not have made such a farfetched
and
> > untenable "example";
>
> Whereas if your familiarity with your language was adequate, you would
> have remembered to look up the word 'if' in the dictionary, and not
> have become trapped by Tindalls irrational objection.
i didn't "forget" to look up the word "if"; oh! you're being facetious!
or, is it sarcasm? i know the conditional premise implied by the word
"if', thank you; perhaps YOU need to refer to strunk and white's guide
on form in order to use the word "if" correctly;
but tindall's irrational objection is a new one on me; care to explain
it?
>
> > your whole premise is an elegant testimony of the
> > value of having/developing a working knowledge of
> literature/poetry/art
> > in order to contribute anything meaningful to the on-going dialogue;
>
> Your whole argument is empty, as demonstrated above.
ah, a non-sequitor, as convincingly explained throughout your "above";
you sure are a smoooooooooooooth operator;
> > i
> > mean, your vain posturings about the "thoughtful reader, one who
takes
> > in the whole context of what he is reading" belies your ackward
> > reasoning, not enhanced by the archaic style of your language which
> > suggests pretension rather than conviction;
>
> False, as shown above.
another non-sequitor; saying something is so does not make it so; you
haven't "shown" any falsehood; silly;
> I presume the thoughtful reader would have
> understood the 'if' portion of my statement.
there you go again, making those damn unwarranted presumptions; nasty
habit, that; as explained (aGAIN!), the "if" portion was understood
quite easily; your use of the "if", however, was quite flawed;
> Indeed, many of them did,
> only a few became trapped, you and Tindall for example. Here are some
> more periods, happy valentines day.................
>
> Carter Mobley
tindall got trapped too? damn. . . . . . oh! you mean Bruce Tindell!! i
thought you meant "Tindell's Irrational Objection", like, occam's razor
or Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle or lorentz' contraction; sorry;
well, thanks for the period offer, but as i said, i have plenty and
don't use em up much, so take some more of mine instead:
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
.....................................................
regardz;
Neil Mortimer
>
> well, maybe i read more into your comments than you intended; i just
> wanted to comment on the "creation in isolation" stand which was
> suggested; the "perfect reflection of the concept that inspired you" is
> Platoist, isn't it? the "ideal form" and all that; i made the
> assumption this was an absolutist position; sorry;
No worries. I have a limited knowledge of Plato, but it sounds about right.
I think you're referring to the theory of 'Forms', forms being a spiritual
realm which contains various ideals and patterns or (tendencies) of
existence. This sort of goes along with the idea that the soul is immortal
and that knowledge is actually 'recollection'. I think I'm beginning to see
where you thought I was coming from with my whole 'don't go the library'
argument.
I've actually always been more of one for eastern philosophy and religion,
like Taoism or particularly Sufism. I'll likely have many ideas that don't
exactly fit in this group of western thought folks, like 'there's no need to
pick fights'. heh.
It would be interesting to see what sort of responses would come of somone
posting Rumi's work in here. Or somone posting their own work inspired by
Rumi... *shudders*
> >
> > I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say here. The
> whole
> > thread revolves around the issue of context... Not about being
> coerced into
> > parodying some pre-existing form... Yes I know. Are you just pointing
> out
> > that this is a possibly unrelated tangent or is there something else?
> I
> > haven't said a word about what I think this NG is about, so is the
> rest of
> > this implying that I am trying to pass my opinions as ultimate and
> > unrefutable truth?
>
> no, of course not; i disagreed with the "writing is everything"
> argument as being much too simplistic and ultimately, unable to account
> for the actual complex process of consideration, reflection, and
> grappling with words/concepts, which includes feedback and discussion
> within the greater context of writing as an artistic dialogue;
You're right. It is very simplistic, it was the abridged version; it leaves
out any mention of the nature of one's creative inspiration, their
inevitable life of education (whether or not it includes the consumption of
various poets), that will serve as the foundation for everything that comes
from the tip of a pen. I don't think I know anybody that knows nothing about
what poetry is, and knows nothing about the creative process, grammar, etc.
These things I just assume when I say 'don't go to the library'. I assume
that by the mere fact that there is a desire to write poetry in the first
place this person has a brain with a decent understanding (to be built on)
of the various things that make poetry what it is.
I'm not familiar with this usage of the word 'attenuated'. I actually had to
look it up to begin with, and all I came up with is 'made thin' or 'rare' or
'lessened'. Maybe its just a very obscure usage of 'attention' or 'tuned'
not easily found in a dictionary or thesaurus.
Its alright. Its pretty much what everyone else has done in this string from
what I've seen. (putting words in people's mouths or putting spins on words
or phrases unintended by the author). Its kind of disturbing, really. It
seems certain people get caught up in refuting somone's point of view they
lose sight of the fact that there is really no gain to come of it, since the
truth of things doesn't really change in this universe. This is where
Plato's Forms fit pretty nicely.
> >
> > Evidently I have not done a very good job of explaining my point of
> > view on this matter.
>
> yeah, well maybe i just didn't read as carefully as i should;
>
> > In no way do I wish to imply that within each poet is
> > perfection waiting to be expressed in a flow of perfect words (nor
> did I
> > ever say as Mike implied that poetry requires no learning). This just
> isn't
> > it. But, when the words before you are in perfect harmony with the
> idea you
> > set to lay in the poem (however many years it takes), you are done
> writing.
>
> BUT: this i just don't *get* or agree with; i suppose, because i don't
> think the "ideal" (in the form of writing) is in the mind, but in the
> actual world AS THE RESULT of having to define and refine it; i see the
> "product" as a result of a self-conscious and deliberate process that
> involves all the aspects of our personality, education, experience,
> skill, effort and so forth; AND i don't necessarily "see" that the
> writing (or art-making) is ever really "done"; it isn't done if it has
> an effect in the world and influences something else to happen, becomes
> part of the ongoing dialogue in the arts; anyway, does SOMETHING; it's
> a bit different than ordinary tangible things because they have an
> abstract value; but perhaps i belabor the obvious, merely taking your
> inelegant expression to pointless task;
I don't think our views on this differ that greatly. It does not matter
whether 'the idea' exists within or without the mind. That is not what is
being written of. Writing (according to me) comes from a concept, which
doesn't necissarily have anything to do with the 'ideal' or 'excellent
poetry'. I agree entirely with the idea that poetry is a deliberate process
involving all aspects of our being. This finished product I speak of.. I
only have 3 poems that are 'done' among a sea of hundreds and hundreds.
However, that does not mean that they are ideal, according to any external
reality, only according to my own personal preference. They are just as I
want them to be, so it takes on a very high value within myself at least,
and from what I have seen the few people that have read these select poems.
Indeed they are not near what I would call a 'masterpiece', which pushes
perfection (as per my previous definition of perfection), but they are
exactly how I wanted to convey my thoughts on a specific emotion, or event,
or whatever be the case.
Socratese was wise in his understanding of his ignorance in all the most
important matters of life.
Carolyn W.
>
> sorry; i didn't mean to come across as if i was "debating" the issue,
> but perhaps at some level such is the result;
>
> the thread consisted of a "craft vs. inspiration" debate; my comments
> were directed towards making the either/or polarity more polyvalent,
> specifically with respect to illustrating the problem with defining
> uneqivocal causal influences, and especially by arguing that
> antecedants do not necessarily, logically, or imperatively "lead" to
> certain conclusions, or "new ideas";
and i introduced the polyvalent "shit hits the fan" theory, as well.
again, i only said that influences and inspirations were important and
perhaps didn't receive enough credit. that's not the same as saying
"influences led to predictable new styles." is it?
>
> your comment above is perhaps too subtle for my *getting it*; if
> something is inevitable, then, by definition, isn't it predictable?
absolutely not! is change inevitible? yes. is change predictable? no.
are new styles inevitible? yes. are they predictable? no. however, was
the beat aesthetic inevitible? *who knows* (and have i said
otherwise?). was it predictable? absolutely not.
> whereas, my argument is that SOME (many? most?) "new"
> developments/trends in the arts cannot be so readily inferred based on
> present/past productions;
>as you recall, in previous comments, i said
> that (or words to the effect) after-the-fact, one can "claim" such-and-
> such *would* have happened, but this is a tenuous conclusion at best;
> how can one know, in advance, that, say, impressionism would have
> achieved prominence as a stylistic convention when it did, or,
> perhaps more importantly, to the DEGREE that it did? after-the-fact,
> one can analyze the various factors of, say, the cultural state-of-
> affairs, the competing agendas of greco-roman classicism, the impact of
> the developing technology of photography on the visual arts, increasing
> cultural exchange with the orient, and the rigid academic formalism
> which largely set the standards for high art at the time, and logically
> "see" that tensions and forces were setting up the dynamics for a new
> style to emerge which challenged orthodoxy and offered a greater avenue
> for exploration/expression than what had previously been accepted;
> but, the phenomenon of "impressionism" as a new and exciting style
> could NOT have been reasonably predicted, nor was it necessarily
> "inevitable", was it?
i see what you're saying; i don't want to sound like a broken record,
but see above where i explained my perception of "inevibility" and
"predictability".
>
> it is problematic at best to determine from "where" and "why" new and
> important artistic ideas extend; the process is often extremely
> subjective and due to a multitude of influences and as the result of
> often obscure reactions; it is typically NOT a distinctly rational or
> clearly linear progression; THAT was the crux of my debate;
well, i disagree with the fact that it's problematic to determine where
and why new and important artistic ideas extend. see the following
letters that kerouac wrote to friends; also, noting lineage *when* it
happens (NOT to say that art evolution is linear) is very useful, in
the very least to find connections and have a broader understanding of
an author, an artist, and so on.
1. letter from kerouac to bill mitchell, circa 1961:
"... the town and the city is my first book, youthful book, influence
of thomas wolfe, while the subterraneans is a later book patterned
after notes from the underground by dostoevsky... and yes, like you
say, "simply a case of different situations looking for different
styles..."
2. from kerouac to donald allen, circa 1959:
"the first serious 'writing' took place after i read about jack london
at the age of 17. like jack, i began to paste up 'long words' on my
bedroom wall in order to memorize them perfectly. at 19 i read
hemingway and saroyan and began writing little terse short stories in
that general style. then i read tom wolfe and began writing in the
rolling style. then i read joyce and wrote a whole juvenile novel like
'uslysses' called 'vanity of duluoz.' then came dostoevsky. finally i
entered a romantic phase with rimbaud and blake which i called my
'self-ultimacy' period, buring what i wrote in order to be
'self-ultimate.' at the age of 24 i was groomed for the western
idealistic concept of letters from reading goethe's 'dichtung and
wahrheit.' the discovery of a style of my own based on spontaneous
'get-with-it,', came after reading the marvelous free narrative letters
of neal cassady, a great writer who happens also to be the dean
moriarty of 'on the road.' i also learned a lot about unrepressed
wordslinging from young allen ginsberg and william seward burroughs.'
detailing
> the "whats" of the creative process is confounded by the incredible
> complexity of the human brain; mobley's and mortimer's claim that
> immersing oneself in the (historical) creative mileui is
> counterproductive and somehow "compromises" the writer's/poets work is
> quite ludicrous, as mobley's out-on-the-limb extreme genesis example
> eloquently demonstrates the value of having an adequate familiarity
> with what artists/writers have created;
>
> and as for semantics, i am "open" for clarification;
> i don't dispute the evident "fact" that keruoac's work reflects many
> literary (as well as social and cultural) influences; but given those
> influences, is it reasonable to infer that kerouac's work was
> "inevitable"?
no, and who said it was inevitable? i'm a bit confused by the
reappearance of this word.
i don't think so; this overly simplifies the issue of
> "how" creative works happen; your comment that molds "conspire to
> inspire" is a poetic allusion, and thus resists a logical refutation;
perhaps because you took "inspire" to mean "infer" or "predict" or
"cause" or something other than "inspire"? i don't quite understand how
you can take one word and lend it meanings that it doesn't have, for
the sake of an argument. perhaps the word "conspire" tripped you up?
and if so, we'd have an entirely different dialog: how past works
actually "try" or "attempt" to inspire future works. at any rate,
"conspire" used with "inspire" still does not mean "infer," "predict,"
"lead to," etc.
> well, okay, fine; but i wasn't perpetuating any myths about kerouac,
> was i? so i wasn't necesarily disagreeing with you either; but your
> premise that his work was "inevitable" trivializes his role as the
> writer, doesn't it?
no, you did not perpetuate any myths about kerouac. but, point out
where i said that kerouac's work was inevitable. ?! or where i implied
that? i said that change was inevitible. i also said that this "thing"
is inevitible ("thing" used in quotations because of the ambiguity of
what-it-is or what-it-might-be--*who knows*). i followed the statement
with the followup, "it is not predictable."
>and i feel the writer is more crucial than the net-
> effect causal-agent of cultural/literary influences;
so-do-i.
duh!
hehe, thanks skye. it's been "fun"?!
-carolyn
Bobby
Bobby
saFire New York <SaF...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8976-38A...@storefull-125.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
when you come out from behind your fake e-mail address - you can tell me
about who you think I really am, since you fancy yourself an expert. lol
But, I think your a little confused about yourself right now and unsure.
Scared. Afraid and mostly -- a NOBODY. Talk when you know what the hell
your taklin bout.
skye
(some judicious snippin')
>I've actually always been more of one for eastern philosophy and
religion, like Taoism or particularly Sufism. I'll likely have many
ideas that don't exactly fit in this group of western thought folks,
like 'there's no need to pick fights'. heh.<
you make an unwarranted assumption that "folks here" don't have a more-
than-working knowledge of eastern religions/thoughts; you are reading
waaay tooo muuuch into what people write here as being somewhat
representative of their world views; (course, this is just my opinion,
and i could be wrong); a LOT of discussion here is motivated to
stimulate further thought; it IS a give-and-take of ideas, even though
it sometimes comes across as a type of holy-war for righteousness sake;
and what's wrong with *fights*? they can be fun and entertaining and
challenging, provoking one to back-up ideas with reasoned
thought/examples; just 'cause we have our convictions, doesn't mean
they're tenable when put to the sink-or-swim test, eh? like the
conventional wisdom goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained; if you
insist on defending your literary aesthetic with authoritative
allusions to Tao or Sufi principles, you might be asked to back them
up; you CAN say anything you want on this forum (well, mostly), but you
can't then expect folks to just let it all slide;
>It would be interesting to see what sort of responses would come of
somone posting Rumi's work in here. Or somone posting their own work
inspired by Rumi... *shudders*<
or "rumi-like" work? dunno, am not familiar with rumi; try it?
>These things I just assume when I say 'don't go to the library'. I
assume that by the mere fact that there is a desire to write poetry in
the first place this person has a brain with a decent understanding (to
be built on) of the various things that make poetry what it is.<
again, quite a leap of assumption, and a weak defense; your statement
is easy to misunderstand in that it seems to imply a profound
revelation, and therefore plays to a self-absorbed adolescent
fetishism/conceit; one may "know" the rudiments of language, but "just
writing" could easily lead to reams of words that are flat and
repetitive; beyond the fact that the library is a great (essential,
almost) place to find out WHAT'S worth knowing more about, going TO the
library encourages a greater-than-self understanding of what life is
*about* and how to sharpen one's language; i guess the point being,
although a self-absorbed project of "writing writing writing" MAY lead
to something significant, an evolution of form so the writing is fresh,
vibrant, exciting, and compelling, this type of writing is more
personal/private and journalistic than having much to do with poetry as
a demanding form of cultural production which "becomes" part of the
greater on-going "discussion" of literature; one should be able to
infer that "library" as used here refers to any collection of creative
works; the idea being, that discovering one's own personal favorite
writers tends to make one a better writer by stimulating ideas and
setting up the terms for an expanded inner/outer dialogue;
>I'm not familiar with this usage of the word 'attenuated'. I actually
had to look it up to begin with, and all I came up with is 'made thin'
or 'rare' or 'lessened'. Maybe its just a very obscure usage of
'attention' or 'tuned' not easily found in a dictionary or thesaurus.<
you may have a point there; my use of the word was closest to that of
the meaning of an attenuator, an electrical device that reduces
amplitude with minimal distortion; it appears i used the word in an
inaccurate manner; my intent was not to add confusion; sorry;
>Its alright. Its pretty much what everyone else has done in this
string from what I've seen. (putting words in people's mouths or
putting spins on words or phrases unintended by the author). Its kind
of disturbing, really. It seems certain people get caught up in
refuting somone's point of view they lose sight of the fact that there
is really no gain to come of it, since the truth of things doesn't
really change in this universe. This is where Plato's Forms fit pretty
nicely.<
folks *here* can be pretty demanding in expecting the writer to be
clear and unequivocal in what they "mean"; it behooves one to think
well before writing and posting, although some folks seem to prefer
doing it the other way around; different strokes, and all that; clarity
is quite a useful (necessary, even) skill; if you brandish platitudes
and broad sweeping statements on this ng, you can pretty-much
anticipate being called to task to back up your ideas; that's an
essential and valuable feature of this newsgroup; in the process, you
might have to rethink your premises/conclusions; if "spin" is placed on
the author's words, it suggests some lack or problem with the way the
words are used; and i disagree with your characterization that there is
no gain to be had from refutation; the "gain" comes from careful
consideration of what and why one has certain beliefs which are in
apparant contradiction, and the choosing and writing of a compelling
argument to support those convictions; i think the best writing is for
oneself, and not "to" or "for" someone else; (of course, to BE good, it
helps if the writing is focused on the issue, and therefore germane);
>Indeed they are not near what I would call a 'masterpiece', which
pushes perfection (as per my previous definition of perfection), but
they are exactly how I wanted to convey my thoughts on a specific
emotion, or event, or whatever be the case.< (Neil Mortimer)<
the designation "masterpiece" (or it's equivalent) (IMHO) should NEVER
NEVER NEVER be used by the writer with respect to their own work; this
is something which can (or should) ONLY legitimately and realistically
be determined by the test of time and the consideration of a wide-
enough audience; self-satisfaction with one's writing is a problematic
criteria to universalize, hence the apparent problem you have been
having with making your stand and defending it on this issue; i would
say, that i have become more demanding and discerning about what i
require from my writing the more i know about writing, which involves a
LOT of reading; if i deliberately DIDN'T expand my reading, it is
unlikely that my writing would have developed (assuming, of course,
that it has, which some folks might contest), as evidenced by the fact
that i tend to see most of my older writings as lacking intensity,
dimension, style, rhythm, clarity, direction, or precise use of
language; i think most writers might afford a similiar insight with
respect to their own works; the argument/debate might be condensed to a
comparison/contrast between the relative merits of a product/process
determination of what writing is all about; "product" oriented writers
would, in my mind, tend to be more self-satisfied with their writing at
any given time, and less prone to thinking that it needs further
refinement/development; many relatively-fresh *poets*/writers fall into
this category, believing that if their work is not critically acclaimed
the "fault" is due to the audience, not to the author; while "process"
oriented writers (artists, in general) are more open to criticism and
developing the craft, finding more pleasure in the doing than the
having done; of course, this is a grossly simplified explanation, but
it does characterize the type of disagreements folks might have about
why something does or doesn't "work";
and so; nuff babblin, eh?
regardz;
skye
skye
(some judicious snippin')
>> "i think that this new "thing" was an inevitable development; though
it
>> was not predictable." (carolyn)
<and i introduced the polyvalent "shit hits the fan" theory, as well.
again, i only said that influences and inspirations were important and
perhaps didn't receive enough credit. that's not the same as saying
"influences led to predictable new styles." is it? <
hmmm...... the "shit hits the fan theory"; i like it; ok, credit where
credit is due, sorry to be so miserly; so: *"Enough Credit"*: payable
on demand to account of Carolyn W.; signed, skye
> your comment above is perhaps too subtle for my *getting it*; if
> something is inevitable, then, by definition, isn't it predictable?
<absolutely not! is change inevitible? yes. is change predictable? no.
are new styles inevitible? yes. are they predictable? no. however, was
the beat aesthetic inevitible? *who knows* (and have i said
otherwise?). was it predictable? absolutely not.<
jeez; excuse me; i thought you meant "something" concrete/abstract
tangible, like "ford mustang" or post-deconstruction theory, or sushi,
and not such intangibles as "change" and "styles"; so ok, i
misunderstood your "inevitable development" comment; sorry;
<i see what you're saying; i don't want to sound like a broken record,
but see above where i explained my perception of "inevibility" and
"predictability".<
noted;
<well, i disagree with the fact that it's problematic to determine
where and why new and important artistic ideas extend. see the
following letters that kerouac wrote to friends; also, noting lineage
*when* it happens (NOT to say that art evolution is linear) is very
useful, in the very least to find connections and have a broader
understanding of an author, an artist, and so on. <
i meant "extend" in terms of ideas' cultural/literary significance,
their eventual importance and meaning in the cultural milieu, and NOT
where they come from or why; the difference is between tracing the
impact of influences, and "knowing" beforehand whether something will
become a noted part of the oeuvre/canon; sorry to express myself so
poorly;
thanks for the interesting record of kerouac's discussion of writers he
was influenced by; but still, they are hardly or necessarily causal,
are they?
<no, and who said it was inevitable? i'm a bit confused by the
reappearance of this word.<
by "thing" in your "inevitable development" comment; by context, i
thought you were referring to the "beat" aesthetic/genre; sorry to
confuse you; my fault;
> i don't think so; this overly simplifies the issue of "how" creative
>works happen; your comment that molds "conspire to inspire" is a
>poetic allusion, and thus resists a logical refutation;
<perhaps because you took "inspire" to mean "infer" or "predict" or
"cause" or something other than "inspire"? i don't quite understand how
you can take one word and lend it meanings that it doesn't have, for
the sake of an argument. perhaps the word "conspire" tripped you up?
and if so, we'd have an entirely different dialog: how past works
actually "try" or "attempt" to inspire future works. at any rate,
"conspire" used with "inspire" still does not mean "infer," "predict,"
"lead to," etc. <
uh, no; you miss my point; it is a poetic allusion because it is not a
literal, thence, rational one; molds (at least conceptual ones, which
is the issue here) don't conspire, as abstractions they are incapable
of the free conscious choice required to render the terms or conditions
of a conspiracy; i beg your pardon, but i *know* the difference in
meaning between the words inspire, infer, predict, and cause; perhaps,
for the sake of argument, there was a word i used which YOU lent an
alternative meaning instead;
<no, you did not perpetuate any myths about kerouac. but, point out
where i said that kerouac's work was inevitable. ?! or where i implied
that? i said that change was inevitible. i also said that this "thing"
is inevitible ("thing" used in quotations because of the ambiguity of
what-it-is or what-it-might-be--*who knows*). i followed the statement
with the followup, "it is not predictable." <
sorry; i thought "thing" in context referred to the beat aesthetic; a
thousand pardons, please; boy, you really take this stuff seriously, eh?
> and i feel the writer is more crucial than the net-effect causal-
>agent of cultural/literary influences;
<so-do-i.
<duh!
<hehe, thanks skye. it's been "fun"?! -carolyn
you're welcome, of course!; and yes, it has been fun, hasn't it?
do this again sometime?
regardz;
skye
Neil Mortimer
Thanks for your thoughtful and considerate responses. It has indeed been a
pleasant and enlightening experience.
regards,
Neil Mortimer
ewatkins...@wistar.upenn.edu.invalid
As far as I know my correct address appears with each of my
posts. Feel free to contact me. I am a little moody and fickle,
so you may want to be a bit more delicate with your language if
you want me to respond.
Hey, I'll be in New York on April 27. Maybe we could get together
for a cream soda and some civilized thumb wrestling.
Keep on Writing,
William Edward Watkins
Carolyn W.
without doing yet another line-by-line or paragraph-by-paragraph reply,
i'll just say that yes, i take these things seriously! i have a passion
for breaking myths (not that you perpetuated one, but in a way, not
giving credit where credit is due for kerouac's influences does
somewhat perpetuate the myth that he is some kinda lone "wolf" at there
on the prairie, howling a song that came out of nowhere else but his
own discovered mold--which isn't true). also, our semantics still don't
match, and even after i most passionately kept saying (to which you
apologized for not understanding) that i never once said that
influences CAUSED or could PREDICT anything, you said, "thanks for the
interesting record of kerouac's discussion of writers he was influenced
by; but still, they are hardly or necessarily causal, are they?" and to
that, i say, umm, no. and who said that they were?
i think i'll leave it at that for now, because i have a tendency to
repeat things that obviously don't get "through," and thus have done so
enough (and evidently they still weren't understood), and don't want to
argue a misunderstood point. still, i've liked this engagement!
-carolyn
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 02:42:49 GMT skye <westx...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> hey carolyn;
>
> (some judicious snippin')
> >> "i think that this new "thing" was an inevitable development; though
> it
> >> was not predictable." (carolyn)
>
> <and i introduced the polyvalent "shit hits the fan" theory, as well.
> again, i only said that influences and inspirations were important and
> perhaps didn't receive enough credit. that's not the same as saying
> "influences led to predictable new styles." is it? <
>
> hmmm...... the "shit hits the fan theory"; i like it; ok, credit where
> credit is due, sorry to be so miserly; so: *"Enough Credit"*: payable
> on demand to account of Carolyn W.; signed, skye
>
> > your comment above is perhaps too subtle for my *getting it*; if
> > something is inevitable, then, by definition, isn't it predictable?
>
> <absolutely not! is change inevitible? yes. is change predictable? no.
> are new styles inevitible? yes. are they predictable? no. however, was
> the beat aesthetic inevitible? *who knows* (and have i said
> otherwise?). was it predictable? absolutely not.<
>
> jeez; excuse me; i thought you meant "something" concrete/abstract
> tangible, like "ford mustang" or post-deconstruction theory, or sushi,
> and not such intangibles as "change" and "styles"; so ok, i
> misunderstood your "inevitable development" comment; sorry;
>
> <i see what you're saying; i don't want to sound like a broken record,
> but see above where i explained my perception of "inevibility" and
> "predictability".<
>
> noted;
>
> <well, i disagree with the fact that it's problematic to determine
> where and why new and important artistic ideas extend. see the
> following letters that kerouac wrote to friends; also, noting lineage
> *when* it happens (NOT to say that art evolution is linear) is very
> useful, in the very least to find connections and have a broader
> understanding of an author, an artist, and so on. <
>
> i meant "extend" in terms of ideas' cultural/literary significance,
> their eventual importance and meaning in the cultural milieu, and NOT
> where they come from or why; the difference is between tracing the
> impact of influences, and "knowing" beforehand whether something will
> become a noted part of the oeuvre/canon; sorry to express myself so
> poorly;
>
> thanks for the interesting record of kerouac's discussion of writers he
> was influenced by; but still, they are hardly or necessarily causal,
> are they?
>
> <no, and who said it was inevitable? i'm a bit confused by the
> reappearance of this word.<
>
> by "thing" in your "inevitable development" comment; by context, i
> thought you were referring to the "beat" aesthetic/genre; sorry to
> confuse you; my fault;
>
> > i don't think so; this overly simplifies the issue of "how" creative
> >works happen; your comment that molds "conspire to inspire" is a
> >poetic allusion, and thus resists a logical refutation;
>
> <perhaps because you took "inspire" to mean "infer" or "predict" or
> "cause" or something other than "inspire"? i don't quite understand how
> you can take one word and lend it meanings that it doesn't have, for
> the sake of an argument. perhaps the word "conspire" tripped you up?
> and if so, we'd have an entirely different dialog: how past works
> actually "try" or "attempt" to inspire future works. at any rate,
> "conspire" used with "inspire" still does not mean "infer," "predict,"
> "lead to," etc. <
>
> uh, no; you miss my point; it is a poetic allusion because it is not a
> literal, thence, rational one; molds (at least conceptual ones, which
> is the issue here) don't conspire, as abstractions they are incapable
> of the free conscious choice required to render the terms or conditions
> of a conspiracy; i beg your pardon, but i *know* the difference in
> meaning between the words inspire, infer, predict, and cause; perhaps,
> for the sake of argument, there was a word i used which YOU lent an
> alternative meaning instead;
>
> <no, you did not perpetuate any myths about kerouac. but, point out
> where i said that kerouac's work was inevitable. ?! or where i implied
> that? i said that change was inevitible. i also said that this "thing"
> is inevitible ("thing" used in quotations because of the ambiguity of
> what-it-is or what-it-might-be--*who knows*). i followed the statement
> with the followup, "it is not predictable." <
>
> sorry; i thought "thing" in context referred to the beat aesthetic; a
> thousand pardons, please; boy, you really take this stuff seriously, eh?
>
> > and i feel the writer is more crucial than the net-effect causal-
> >agent of cultural/literary influences;
>
> <so-do-i.
> <duh!
> <hehe, thanks skye. it's been "fun"?! -carolyn
>
> you're welcome, of course!; and yes, it has been fun, hasn't it?
> do this again sometime?
> regardz;
> skye
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
pink_leop...@my-deja.com
Best wishes,
p_l_b