First. Congrats to JoNelle :)
Jessea, I hear you. In fact, I have heard the argument that the so-called language poetry (LP) tries to remove authorial intent and therefore creates equality with the readers for many many times...it's getting old but not yet. I think there's still merit in the intent to create equality. How else would equality with the readers enter the consciousness if you don't intend it first (and therefore, necessarily, creates a hierarchy)?
I think what makes it worthwhile is the author's being ok with the knowledge that the work will not make unified sense to those encountered it. And that's ok. And that's actually good. Chances are no one is going to agree that the author was a revelation, or the liberator, since--because the text lacks traditional unification--the destination the work leads is going to be different for everyone.
This goes against the so-called narrative poetry (NP), which, traditionally, hopes that everyone reads it and ends up at the same place. It's like the "Ah...I see" moment. The "Ah....I see" becomes then static. It becomes an established piece of knowledge that the author intended for it to take place in potentially all that read the work. After this happens, then the reader are "allowed" to relate his/her personal experiences to it or vice versa.
In LP, I think, the "Ah...I see" moment is not to exist. The authority of the author is in this removal.
But reading the LP is counter-intuitive though. It's more work because it's not-as-familiar work. I read Scalapino's THE TANGO for class last year and that was really really hard. I ended up applying what I find more familiar to me (philosophy, it was) to her work. The result is: I'm still iffy about THE TANGO, but i really know i like philosophy.
Sorry for being anecdoctal. Hope it illstrates a point.
(request/suggestion: please try a lot of short blog paragraphs as opposed to one huge blog paragraph. It's more user-friendly on a screen. Thanks! )
Jessea, I hear you. In fact, I have heard the argument that the so-called language poetry (LP) tries to remove authorial intent and therefore creates equality with the readers for many many times...it's getting old but not yet. I think there's still merit in the intent to create equality. How else would equality with the readers enter the consciousness if you don't intend it first (and therefore, necessarily, creates a hierarchy)?
I think what makes it worthwhile is the author's being ok with the knowledge that the work will not make unified sense to those encountered it. And that's ok. And that's actually good. Chances are no one is going to agree that the author was a revelation, or the liberator, since--because the text lacks traditional unification--the destination the work leads is going to be different for everyone.
This goes against the so-called narrative poetry (NP), which, traditionally, hopes that everyone reads it and ends up at the same place. It's like the "Ah...I see" moment. The "Ah....I see" becomes then static. It becomes an established piece of knowledge that the author intended for it to take place in potentially all that read the work. After this happens, then the reader are "allowed" to relate his/her personal experiences to it or vice versa.
In LP, I think, the "Ah...I see" moment is not to exist. The authority of the author is in this removal.
But reading the LP is counter-intuitive though. It's more work because it's not-as-familiar work. I read Scalapino's THE TANGO for class last year and that was really really hard. I ended up applying what I find more familiar to me (philosophy, it was) to her work. The result is: I'm still iffy about THE TANGO, but i really know i like philosophy.
Sorry for being anecdoctal. Hope it illstrates a point.
(request/suggestion: please try a lot of short blog paragraphs as opposed to one huge blog paragraph. It's more user-friendly on a screen. Thanks! )
<< Home