I think blogging can be a fulltime job.
I can’t recall how the conversation got there, but, at White Horse, Jessea asked if there were differences between the so-called traditional VS experimental work. This topic is immortal! I think we have talked about this over and over and over. Some (like Jessea) think it’s all the same. Some (like me) think you could argue in a very very diverse way. Some (like me (and Jessea?)) think it shouldn’t matter if there is or isn’t a difference between them.
I think the followings:
If you think it’s all the same, you are aiming at the commonality of what’s called writing, huge and general. After all, there are twenty-six letters in the English language; it is just how those letters are employed to convey/provoke thoughts in the endless number of combination those letters allow. Language will always make you think, make you brain function, make you want to get something out of it, make you want to reason. Anything that is language (or has the feature of being a language, like music, as Jessea says) will always make you react that way. Writing takes place within language; therefore is conditioned to what language itself is for—to communicate. All that is written communicate.
If you think it’s not the same, you might be thinking at the more specific levels of what’s called writing. The twenty-six letters start to behave differently; some ask you to listen and be quite; some ask you to get up and jump. You could be saying things like traditional works ask you to me more of a receiver of what’s said while experimental works ask you to think along. (Now, Jessea, I could hear you scream right here and say that you always think along regardless…I know I know…bear with me, ok?) The receiving and the thinking have to happen in both cases, I think. They have to. I think that’s what happens when one reads. But, because the different things that enter your brain are likely to produce different occurrences in your brain, (e.g. full sentences vs interrupted phrases; “roses are red” vs “a moment yellow” (from My Life) ) people can argue that it is possible for writing to be of differences.
Traditional and experimental are not at all parallel in any way to good or bad. I think arguing differences is not arguing values. Values are a whole new blog.
If you think this shouldn’t matter, I agree with you. I think a piece of writing is going to do exactly what it does to you. It’s a fluid space, this space of poetry. It has to be. So I think it doesn’t hurt to know that writings have the potential to be categorized differently; it doesn’t hurt to believe that all writings share similarities or sameness. It’s completely valid to like or dislike a piece of work because you do. There will always be contradictory things in all levels. There will always be agreement and disagreements. So suit yourself and make the best of it.
OK. This came out simpler than I thought. Thanks for listening,
I can’t recall how the conversation got there, but, at White Horse, Jessea asked if there were differences between the so-called traditional VS experimental work. This topic is immortal! I think we have talked about this over and over and over. Some (like Jessea) think it’s all the same. Some (like me) think you could argue in a very very diverse way. Some (like me (and Jessea?)) think it shouldn’t matter if there is or isn’t a difference between them.
I think the followings:
If you think it’s all the same, you are aiming at the commonality of what’s called writing, huge and general. After all, there are twenty-six letters in the English language; it is just how those letters are employed to convey/provoke thoughts in the endless number of combination those letters allow. Language will always make you think, make you brain function, make you want to get something out of it, make you want to reason. Anything that is language (or has the feature of being a language, like music, as Jessea says) will always make you react that way. Writing takes place within language; therefore is conditioned to what language itself is for—to communicate. All that is written communicate.
If you think it’s not the same, you might be thinking at the more specific levels of what’s called writing. The twenty-six letters start to behave differently; some ask you to listen and be quite; some ask you to get up and jump. You could be saying things like traditional works ask you to me more of a receiver of what’s said while experimental works ask you to think along. (Now, Jessea, I could hear you scream right here and say that you always think along regardless…I know I know…bear with me, ok?) The receiving and the thinking have to happen in both cases, I think. They have to. I think that’s what happens when one reads. But, because the different things that enter your brain are likely to produce different occurrences in your brain, (e.g. full sentences vs interrupted phrases; “roses are red” vs “a moment yellow” (from My Life) ) people can argue that it is possible for writing to be of differences.
Traditional and experimental are not at all parallel in any way to good or bad. I think arguing differences is not arguing values. Values are a whole new blog.
If you think this shouldn’t matter, I agree with you. I think a piece of writing is going to do exactly what it does to you. It’s a fluid space, this space of poetry. It has to be. So I think it doesn’t hurt to know that writings have the potential to be categorized differently; it doesn’t hurt to believe that all writings share similarities or sameness. It’s completely valid to like or dislike a piece of work because you do. There will always be contradictory things in all levels. There will always be agreement and disagreements. So suit yourself and make the best of it.
OK. This came out simpler than I thought. Thanks for listening,
<< Home