A bunch of us had dinner at Tea Shop and talked friendlily. I want to put this out so more could join. Can I?
Again, it's the immortal question of narrative vs not-narrative poems. Maybe a bit about our preference amongst them (but, is there really the them, to start?) These terms, first of all, never get defined for good. But we talk about them all the time! So, from this very fact, that we talk about them all the time, I infer that we sort of know what they sort of are. The immortality of this question might be due to the "sort of" part. Absolute agreement is too good to be true. I don't like absolute agreement either. It will make things static and not lively.
Does narrative or not really matter? I think it doesn't as long as the poem makes itself matter. And what does that mean? Hmm...it means there's something important about it, something that enters into you (or me) as charged with something really good beyond what's actually being said, something communicative because of the words not by the words. This sounds scarily metaphysical. But isn't poetry a metaphysical kind of communication par excellence? Narrative poetry can be extremely beautifully metaphysical too, if you need to hear that.
I think we bring ourselves to our work. And we bring ourselves to our reading of works. And that's a great thing. Most of us have preferences (and I really do wish that the term preferences is sufficient. No more lable necessary) and that's good too. I think we produce best work when we prefer it. (What follows is to agree with you, Jessea) Nonetheless, being informed is different from being influenced. Say, I don't think I'm going to be influenced by Mary Oliver or Scalapino, but I am informed of them. And that makes me a smarter me doing just what I do. Maybe.
Just one or two more thoughts.
Have a good break everyone!
Again, it's the immortal question of narrative vs not-narrative poems. Maybe a bit about our preference amongst them (but, is there really the them, to start?) These terms, first of all, never get defined for good. But we talk about them all the time! So, from this very fact, that we talk about them all the time, I infer that we sort of know what they sort of are. The immortality of this question might be due to the "sort of" part. Absolute agreement is too good to be true. I don't like absolute agreement either. It will make things static and not lively.
Does narrative or not really matter? I think it doesn't as long as the poem makes itself matter. And what does that mean? Hmm...it means there's something important about it, something that enters into you (or me) as charged with something really good beyond what's actually being said, something communicative because of the words not by the words. This sounds scarily metaphysical. But isn't poetry a metaphysical kind of communication par excellence? Narrative poetry can be extremely beautifully metaphysical too, if you need to hear that.
I think we bring ourselves to our work. And we bring ourselves to our reading of works. And that's a great thing. Most of us have preferences (and I really do wish that the term preferences is sufficient. No more lable necessary) and that's good too. I think we produce best work when we prefer it. (What follows is to agree with you, Jessea) Nonetheless, being informed is different from being influenced. Say, I don't think I'm going to be influenced by Mary Oliver or Scalapino, but I am informed of them. And that makes me a smarter me doing just what I do. Maybe.
Just one or two more thoughts.
Have a good break everyone!
<< Home