i saw that article as well. i couldn't read it because it made me so mad.
this blog is tricky. i am here & i read all these posts w/great interest but everything is so quick & snappy that responding is a challenge!
on voting--this reminds me of the conundrum juliana was talking about the other day of whether or not it is "moral" to accept a pulitzer prize since this prize is awarded by "the media" who knowingly reported the incorrect info that iraq had wmd's. questions like this exhaust me. they are good questions, but i cannot help thinking about how difficult it is to lead a life which is always consistent w/one's morals. i feel like it's so complicated--how do you consume anything which is not hurting someone? how do we chase down all the consequences of our actions? is this a good way to live? where do you get your food? your clothes? do you drive a car? etcetera. this is maybe a cop out but sometimes you gotta cop out.
but back to the bush thing. the inconsistency, the fluidity of meaning. this is a major point of thought/confusion for me, as it relates to "radical" (or formerly radical) poetics. REDUCTIVE ALERT, I WARNED YOU. we have some poets who say that language is a form of control & we need to make it more fluid, w/multiple interpretations & possibilties. but then our president seems to be doing the same thing--meaning is very fluid in bush's speeches. his motives change, or he recontextualizes something earlier said for new meaning. like gertrude stein! is it radical or against the system to be doing this in your work? wouldn't it be more radical to say something & mean it & have one intended interpretation?
i agree & disagree with what i just said.
i like talking about music & i'd like to hear more about erika's experience listening to e. smith. does anyone want to ditch a poetry reading sometime & go to a rock concert instead?
i think i will go to stephanies tonight even though i fear house readings, esp those w/potlucks.
i can't wait for class today to talk about IRONY in the work of both william & dan.
this blog is tricky. i am here & i read all these posts w/great interest but everything is so quick & snappy that responding is a challenge!
on voting--this reminds me of the conundrum juliana was talking about the other day of whether or not it is "moral" to accept a pulitzer prize since this prize is awarded by "the media" who knowingly reported the incorrect info that iraq had wmd's. questions like this exhaust me. they are good questions, but i cannot help thinking about how difficult it is to lead a life which is always consistent w/one's morals. i feel like it's so complicated--how do you consume anything which is not hurting someone? how do we chase down all the consequences of our actions? is this a good way to live? where do you get your food? your clothes? do you drive a car? etcetera. this is maybe a cop out but sometimes you gotta cop out.
but back to the bush thing. the inconsistency, the fluidity of meaning. this is a major point of thought/confusion for me, as it relates to "radical" (or formerly radical) poetics. REDUCTIVE ALERT, I WARNED YOU. we have some poets who say that language is a form of control & we need to make it more fluid, w/multiple interpretations & possibilties. but then our president seems to be doing the same thing--meaning is very fluid in bush's speeches. his motives change, or he recontextualizes something earlier said for new meaning. like gertrude stein! is it radical or against the system to be doing this in your work? wouldn't it be more radical to say something & mean it & have one intended interpretation?
i agree & disagree with what i just said.
i like talking about music & i'd like to hear more about erika's experience listening to e. smith. does anyone want to ditch a poetry reading sometime & go to a rock concert instead?
i think i will go to stephanies tonight even though i fear house readings, esp those w/potlucks.
i can't wait for class today to talk about IRONY in the work of both william & dan.
<< Home