to add a little more to what padcha was saying..
i think it's great that everyone has such a firm aesthetic position from which to argue from & develop opinions from.. i also think that if there is a poet in class who wants to write narrative poetry, the discussion shouldn't be "why narrative poetry doesn't interest me or matter since l=a=...." it should be how to write narrative poetry. to explore that tradition & place the poem within it. got to keep in mind that there are so many different ways of constructing a project.. and despite what scott may say, i don't think he can really "prove" that narrative is immoral or evil or whatever. instead of pointing out "hey, this poem tells a story and makes 'sense' and if you switch it up to lose the 'sense' i think it's more interesting," i think we should ask if that's the project in the first place. if not, maybe that kind of feedback is irrelevant.
i'm a fence sitter. i think both sides are right. and if that's making the audience uncomfortable, isn't that a good sign? maybe you can be more involved w/a text that discomfits you. maybe some (what the hell do we call it??) experimental texts are too easy to read because we drop 'meaning' and then what? i'd like to be pushed, by the way, in how i read experimental work. please, if you see me, stop me & give me a pop quiz. i'm into rules regulations test scores and raps on knuckles. point is that fence-sitter is defendable position also. if you disagree let's fight!
anyway. let's just all recognize the gajillions of traditions from which to write from or the infinite number which will be created & not think everything has to be the same.
oh and regarding BAR tomorrow night--i don't think anything organized is happening since 90% of you are starting spring break early and skipping town (i won't tell stephen). so let's all hook up again after the break. the b=r=e=a=k.
i think it's great that everyone has such a firm aesthetic position from which to argue from & develop opinions from.. i also think that if there is a poet in class who wants to write narrative poetry, the discussion shouldn't be "why narrative poetry doesn't interest me or matter since l=a=...." it should be how to write narrative poetry. to explore that tradition & place the poem within it. got to keep in mind that there are so many different ways of constructing a project.. and despite what scott may say, i don't think he can really "prove" that narrative is immoral or evil or whatever. instead of pointing out "hey, this poem tells a story and makes 'sense' and if you switch it up to lose the 'sense' i think it's more interesting," i think we should ask if that's the project in the first place. if not, maybe that kind of feedback is irrelevant.
i'm a fence sitter. i think both sides are right. and if that's making the audience uncomfortable, isn't that a good sign? maybe you can be more involved w/a text that discomfits you. maybe some (what the hell do we call it??) experimental texts are too easy to read because we drop 'meaning' and then what? i'd like to be pushed, by the way, in how i read experimental work. please, if you see me, stop me & give me a pop quiz. i'm into rules regulations test scores and raps on knuckles. point is that fence-sitter is defendable position also. if you disagree let's fight!
anyway. let's just all recognize the gajillions of traditions from which to write from or the infinite number which will be created & not think everything has to be the same.
oh and regarding BAR tomorrow night--i don't think anything organized is happening since 90% of you are starting spring break early and skipping town (i won't tell stephen). so let's all hook up again after the break. the b=r=e=a=k.
<< Home