i won't take anyone who says narrative-representational language is evil seriously unless they stop speaking to me in sentences
scott, i gotta give you props for Taking a Stand. i like it just like i liked it when juliana posted her if-you're-not-writing-revolution-you're-with-the-system post. i also disagree with it as much. dogma! dogma. Us versus Them. paradigm of binaries. paradigm of dominations.
your warlike analogies & language are PART of the system which you claim to want to dismantle. you sound like a devotee of bush et al. only with different ideology. i mean, that's great. but i get the feeling that you're one of those guys who, once they dismantle or overthow the system, would be just as bad as the former reigning power. take this all tongue-in-cheekly, by the way, but a little bit serious. like yeah, let's arm wrestle..
what i'm trying to say is that when you try to say that you'd get rid of evil patriarchalcapitalistic society by fighting & forcing, you're doing just what they do..
i think kristin also has some really great points. i don't have the answers to them. i mean, it's not like this is the first time that it's ever been said that ANY poetry, let alone theory-driven experimental academic poetry, is elitist. on the one hand, i think there is a real place for elitism in this world, even in the academy. there is some jusitifcation for the academy being somewhat removed from the "real" world. i was thinking about this today, realizing that the jargon we use, the arguments we have, they sound HYSTERICALLY funny & stereotypical. i mean, just imagine if this crap were broadcast to some folks in their offices in downtown SF. but then, i've had enough of the corporate experience to know that their jargon sounds just as ridiculous. my point is, yes, the academic world may be quite removed from commonplace real world, but so are many professions these days. increasing specialization & micro-management.
but then on the other hand. how dumb is it of experimental poetries to alienate its allies? i think it's pretty dumb. that's why i'm all for acceptance. i'm not very stuck in my ways. i'm malleable. it wouldn't destroy me to learn that language poetics was irrelevant or out-of-fashion.
and on the mills thing, i really think that's something you'd have to take up with the administration. if mills wants to advertise itself as an experimental, "innovative" school, and only admit poets who are into that, great. rip the narrative up. (although, christ, if i were surrounded by NOTHING BUT anti-narrative people, i'd just have to write stories. to be contrary.) but it's not. so the workshop should be open.
finally, i know i said up there that i'd only take you seriously if you stopped using sentences. this is a joke & everything, but it illustrates a truth. we need representational language. really! but the problem here is that experimentation/"irrationality" loses every time. it's like trying to use logic/philosophy to prove existence of god. you will fail. the only way to allow for non-logical thoughts & impulses is to experience them outside of accepted syntactic/logical structure. you can't express the ineffable through words, duh, that's why it's ineffable. and that's one reason to write poetry: to try.
scott, i gotta give you props for Taking a Stand. i like it just like i liked it when juliana posted her if-you're-not-writing-revolution-you're-with-the-system post. i also disagree with it as much. dogma! dogma. Us versus Them. paradigm of binaries. paradigm of dominations.
your warlike analogies & language are PART of the system which you claim to want to dismantle. you sound like a devotee of bush et al. only with different ideology. i mean, that's great. but i get the feeling that you're one of those guys who, once they dismantle or overthow the system, would be just as bad as the former reigning power. take this all tongue-in-cheekly, by the way, but a little bit serious. like yeah, let's arm wrestle..
what i'm trying to say is that when you try to say that you'd get rid of evil patriarchalcapitalistic society by fighting & forcing, you're doing just what they do..
i think kristin also has some really great points. i don't have the answers to them. i mean, it's not like this is the first time that it's ever been said that ANY poetry, let alone theory-driven experimental academic poetry, is elitist. on the one hand, i think there is a real place for elitism in this world, even in the academy. there is some jusitifcation for the academy being somewhat removed from the "real" world. i was thinking about this today, realizing that the jargon we use, the arguments we have, they sound HYSTERICALLY funny & stereotypical. i mean, just imagine if this crap were broadcast to some folks in their offices in downtown SF. but then, i've had enough of the corporate experience to know that their jargon sounds just as ridiculous. my point is, yes, the academic world may be quite removed from commonplace real world, but so are many professions these days. increasing specialization & micro-management.
but then on the other hand. how dumb is it of experimental poetries to alienate its allies? i think it's pretty dumb. that's why i'm all for acceptance. i'm not very stuck in my ways. i'm malleable. it wouldn't destroy me to learn that language poetics was irrelevant or out-of-fashion.
and on the mills thing, i really think that's something you'd have to take up with the administration. if mills wants to advertise itself as an experimental, "innovative" school, and only admit poets who are into that, great. rip the narrative up. (although, christ, if i were surrounded by NOTHING BUT anti-narrative people, i'd just have to write stories. to be contrary.) but it's not. so the workshop should be open.
finally, i know i said up there that i'd only take you seriously if you stopped using sentences. this is a joke & everything, but it illustrates a truth. we need representational language. really! but the problem here is that experimentation/"irrationality" loses every time. it's like trying to use logic/philosophy to prove existence of god. you will fail. the only way to allow for non-logical thoughts & impulses is to experience them outside of accepted syntactic/logical structure. you can't express the ineffable through words, duh, that's why it's ineffable. and that's one reason to write poetry: to try.
<< Home