yay, angie's blogging. don't stop! and jonelle is married--congratulations!
angie, i think your post may have been saying something i've thought of in the past. tell me if i am way off-base, but here's what i hear you saying: this idea of "challenging" the reader through unconventional syntax, abstraction, etc., is just as elitist as the conventional mode of author as superior to the reader. like, these language poets claim that by undoing the traditional model of authorial control, by encouraging the reader to take part in the meaning-making as an equal participant. they say this is a way of undoing systems of control and hierarchy. but isn't it STILL a system of control, if the reader must be exposed to this new text in order to be "liberated"? the author still assumes that s/he, in making the text, is on a higher level than the reader, who will only join the author in enlightenment once they have read the text.
it's still trying to manipulate the reader. it's still authorial control.
OR on the other hand, there really is no such thing as a "passive text." no matter how "easily digestable" the content, the reader STILL, ALWAYS must partake in "meaning-making." if i say to you "bob ran 5 miles and then he ate an apple," there is still lots of "work" to be done on the part of the reader. lots of filling in of information, lots of imagination, lots of interpretation.
either way, language poetry isn't the end-all way to blow someone's mind.
scott, what about the idea that humans need both logical & illogical forms of language. they need the campfire stories and they need the grunts & ecstatic chants? we need both.
you know what my brain is chewing on now? confessionalism. i'm writing a paper on sylvia plath for stephen's class, arguing that she's not a confessional poet. if anyone feels like it, tell me what you think about confessionalism. what it is, if it's good or bad, and why plath is really that different from lyn hejinian (i don't think she is!). like, using the "I". that conversation.
scott, don't know what to say about your last post except: EMBRACE THE PARADOX!
oh and p.s., i read ishmael reed's book about walking tours in oakland, and i don't think i even need to go on black panther tour now. he basically gives the entire tour verbatim in the book.
p.p.s. juliana, thank you so much for making me read jennifer moxley. where has she been all my life?
angie, i think your post may have been saying something i've thought of in the past. tell me if i am way off-base, but here's what i hear you saying: this idea of "challenging" the reader through unconventional syntax, abstraction, etc., is just as elitist as the conventional mode of author as superior to the reader. like, these language poets claim that by undoing the traditional model of authorial control, by encouraging the reader to take part in the meaning-making as an equal participant. they say this is a way of undoing systems of control and hierarchy. but isn't it STILL a system of control, if the reader must be exposed to this new text in order to be "liberated"? the author still assumes that s/he, in making the text, is on a higher level than the reader, who will only join the author in enlightenment once they have read the text.
it's still trying to manipulate the reader. it's still authorial control.
OR on the other hand, there really is no such thing as a "passive text." no matter how "easily digestable" the content, the reader STILL, ALWAYS must partake in "meaning-making." if i say to you "bob ran 5 miles and then he ate an apple," there is still lots of "work" to be done on the part of the reader. lots of filling in of information, lots of imagination, lots of interpretation.
either way, language poetry isn't the end-all way to blow someone's mind.
scott, what about the idea that humans need both logical & illogical forms of language. they need the campfire stories and they need the grunts & ecstatic chants? we need both.
you know what my brain is chewing on now? confessionalism. i'm writing a paper on sylvia plath for stephen's class, arguing that she's not a confessional poet. if anyone feels like it, tell me what you think about confessionalism. what it is, if it's good or bad, and why plath is really that different from lyn hejinian (i don't think she is!). like, using the "I". that conversation.
scott, don't know what to say about your last post except: EMBRACE THE PARADOX!
oh and p.s., i read ishmael reed's book about walking tours in oakland, and i don't think i even need to go on black panther tour now. he basically gives the entire tour verbatim in the book.
p.p.s. juliana, thank you so much for making me read jennifer moxley. where has she been all my life?
<< Home