poethical wager
I'm really at a loss with this, not knowing what to say about this book yet. But the world runs on time lines! So I must say something.. I am grappling with this book, I feel like it takes me an hour to read 4 pages of it. So I, as well, am still in the first few chapters. "Cartoon version"-ly, I keep coming back to this idea of binaries. I feel like this is a major point for Retallack--exploring the idea that there is a split between masculine/feminine, logical/irrational, mainstream/experimental. At some points I think she veers into Quantum Mechanics (& Buddhism) with the idea that there really is no absoluteness to these ideas, that they are continuums, that they switch places with each other. That matter is not solid nor is it truly locateable at any particular palce at any particular moment in time--it's only likely to be here or there. And then she veers back and says that these binaries are essential, that they need each other to exist, that we need them to define our world. I think that's a paradox & I think she (intentionally) contradicts herself, the argument IS the essay, the form IS the content, and so on.
Regarding Scott's comments on random & patterns--this is at the heart of my own writing & spirituality (no difference between two). I don't believe in random. I believe things can appear to be that way, but there are always patterns. I also admit that this might be a human animal instinct to see life this way, making patterns where there doesn't appear to be any (see: mythology of constellations, creation myths, dream interpretation, etc.). But even if it's a human creation and there is no divine or supernatural force behind this, it doesn't matter. What matters is that humans look for meaning in seeming chaos. What matters is meaning. This comes back, Scott, to what I wasy saying to you the other night regarding meaning in poetry. I say go with it! When I read work that fights its own meaning, I still find it within. I find meaning in a certain brand of gum wrapper I find on my shoe. I don't think this is wrong.
While we're on the topic, Scott, I want to respond to your comment that I shouldn't say that I feel dumb when I feel dumb. Retallack writes: "In the arts & humanities untroubled intelligbility is a sign of denial." I do find myself constantly baffled and at a loss when trying to explain myself logically on these subjects, but I find it liberating to express that bafflement. Admitting what you don't know, etc. I think Retallack makes a great case for the idea that truly contemporary, experimental writing (and all truly contemporary writing IS experimental) defies any current system of logic. Its job is to step outside of that. So we write our essays, our blog entries, we have our class discussions, and try to understand (or explain) something which can't, by Retallack's definition, be explained logically. This is fantastic.
Those are the only arguments I've chewed up and spit out so far. It's funny because everyone keeps saying "Ooh Jessea will love this book" but I am having a hard time understanding the arguments. If someone wants to pick out an argument, say just one essay, and break it down, that would be great. I do love this book. I just don't know how much I love it yet. Any book that promises answers is all right with me.
P.S. New workshop sounds rad. The old one was, too, but it's good to mix it up.
Juliana--will you post some suggestions for writing in a trance?
I'm really at a loss with this, not knowing what to say about this book yet. But the world runs on time lines! So I must say something.. I am grappling with this book, I feel like it takes me an hour to read 4 pages of it. So I, as well, am still in the first few chapters. "Cartoon version"-ly, I keep coming back to this idea of binaries. I feel like this is a major point for Retallack--exploring the idea that there is a split between masculine/feminine, logical/irrational, mainstream/experimental. At some points I think she veers into Quantum Mechanics (& Buddhism) with the idea that there really is no absoluteness to these ideas, that they are continuums, that they switch places with each other. That matter is not solid nor is it truly locateable at any particular palce at any particular moment in time--it's only likely to be here or there. And then she veers back and says that these binaries are essential, that they need each other to exist, that we need them to define our world. I think that's a paradox & I think she (intentionally) contradicts herself, the argument IS the essay, the form IS the content, and so on.
Regarding Scott's comments on random & patterns--this is at the heart of my own writing & spirituality (no difference between two). I don't believe in random. I believe things can appear to be that way, but there are always patterns. I also admit that this might be a human animal instinct to see life this way, making patterns where there doesn't appear to be any (see: mythology of constellations, creation myths, dream interpretation, etc.). But even if it's a human creation and there is no divine or supernatural force behind this, it doesn't matter. What matters is that humans look for meaning in seeming chaos. What matters is meaning. This comes back, Scott, to what I wasy saying to you the other night regarding meaning in poetry. I say go with it! When I read work that fights its own meaning, I still find it within. I find meaning in a certain brand of gum wrapper I find on my shoe. I don't think this is wrong.
While we're on the topic, Scott, I want to respond to your comment that I shouldn't say that I feel dumb when I feel dumb. Retallack writes: "In the arts & humanities untroubled intelligbility is a sign of denial." I do find myself constantly baffled and at a loss when trying to explain myself logically on these subjects, but I find it liberating to express that bafflement. Admitting what you don't know, etc. I think Retallack makes a great case for the idea that truly contemporary, experimental writing (and all truly contemporary writing IS experimental) defies any current system of logic. Its job is to step outside of that. So we write our essays, our blog entries, we have our class discussions, and try to understand (or explain) something which can't, by Retallack's definition, be explained logically. This is fantastic.
Those are the only arguments I've chewed up and spit out so far. It's funny because everyone keeps saying "Ooh Jessea will love this book" but I am having a hard time understanding the arguments. If someone wants to pick out an argument, say just one essay, and break it down, that would be great. I do love this book. I just don't know how much I love it yet. Any book that promises answers is all right with me.
P.S. New workshop sounds rad. The old one was, too, but it's good to mix it up.
Juliana--will you post some suggestions for writing in a trance?
<< Home