tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post114168608797794519..comments2023-11-03T06:31:07.882-04:00Comments on Cahiers de Corey: Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06846875103765617419noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1142285911579513042006-03-13T16:38:00.000-05:002006-03-13T16:38:00.000-05:00Pound's Big 3 of poetry -- wordplay, sound (or mel...Pound's Big 3 of poetry -- wordplay, sound (or melody), and image, if I understand correctly -- leaves out narrative. Which is fine for lyric, and which gets at my problem with a lot of your B: too often it's anecdote whose status as poetry is opaque to me -- why don't they just prose it? <BR/><BR/>I'm hesitant to diss private property. Call me bourgie, but I'm attached to mine, and I've known exceedingly few people who aren't attached to theirs. Marx's analysis of the exploitation of the non-owning class rocks, but positing a post-property mass-culture state is like positing the Messiah (as Benjamin intimated and Northrop Frye explicitly said; I'm sure others have too).<BR/><BR/>Don't just flirt with the religious. Ask it out on a date. Just make sure it's an unaffiliated religion. With an affiliated religion, you invariably end up dating a whole huge messed-up family.<BR/><BR/>Great post. Thanks.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07000424514491809383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1142057131664138702006-03-11T01:05:00.000-05:002006-03-11T01:05:00.000-05:00Man, if Zukofsky and Niedecker (and Susan Howe) ar...Man, if Zukofsky and Niedecker (and Susan Howe) aren't C, I don't know who is. The trouble with your identities is that they're reader defined.<BR/><BR/>Well, that's not trouble except that you're trying to apply them to poetry wars, and poetry wars ignore any possibility of a reader.<BR/><BR/>But any "school" has examples of all three types, no matter what rhetoric they deploy on their jacket blurbs to make themselves seem like one big bobbing unit.<BR/><BR/>I believe Silliman when he says the "post-avant" community is essential to his writing, but he's dead-of-the-author wrong if he thinks it's essential to reading his writing.Ray Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15998321016748928251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1142047147866773272006-03-10T22:19:00.000-05:002006-03-10T22:19:00.000-05:00But how many examples of A are there, really?I can...But how many examples of A are there, really?<BR/>I can only think of Perelman and Zukofsky as examples of A without an underlying C (Most Langpo heavy on the underlying C), and not mixed with B (Beats, probably most Objectivist, have a strong presence of a subject considering the social view). <BR/><BR/>The claim that most Langpo has an underlying C is disputable, but which Modernists count as A?Peli Grietzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02338260572782761649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1141951654480319862006-03-09T19:47:00.000-05:002006-03-09T19:47:00.000-05:00i enjoyed this post [and the subsequent discussion...i enjoyed this post <BR/><BR/>[and the subsequent discussion]. i surfed over from c dale young's. <BR/><BR/>cheers.Lee Herrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13989557906560291595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1141792671899654852006-03-07T23:37:00.000-05:002006-03-07T23:37:00.000-05:00not to sound like a cop-out but i am inclined to a...not to sound like a cop-out but i am inclined to agree with simon, that "a lot of the truly great stuff is IMO poetry that gets to A via C..." or at least i find this statement quite resonant.<BR/><BR/>good post. thank you.bjaneprhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07212077947146090915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1141760189783674362006-03-07T14:36:00.000-05:002006-03-07T14:36:00.000-05:00It's a good question, Robert. I think what I'm try...It's a good question, Robert. I think what I'm trying to get at here are different conceptions of the use of the private-Romantic space that has traditionally been reserved for lyric poetry. Poetry B is invested in privacy for its own sake: the self as private property. Poetry C needs a clearing free of social static so as to launch its missions toward the sublime. I suppose you could make the Kantian distinction that suggests: Poetry B is devoted to the private beautiful (but in my opinion usually falls short even of that and becomes "culinary"), Poetry C seeks the sublime. Still and all, that leaves B and C as having more in common with each other than either have with A.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846875103765617419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1141758458735969692006-03-07T14:07:00.000-05:002006-03-07T14:07:00.000-05:00Very interesting post. When you say, "I think most...Very interesting post. When you say, "I think most people, when they go looking for a poem, are looking for C. Sometimes they find it, sometimes they settle for B," it raises one question for me. Is there really a fundamental difference between B and C, or are B poems really just mediocre attempts at C poems? Granted, no one's going to confuse Rilke with Kooser, but in your description it still sounds as though the difference between them may simply be the difference between "stage-managed" epiphany and the real thing.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13471547669854013234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1141749411411833702006-03-07T11:36:00.000-05:002006-03-07T11:36:00.000-05:00'aight.xxxjimmy'aight.<BR/><BR/>xxxjimmyJim Behrlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08581472923510160635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1141748207397055252006-03-07T11:16:00.000-05:002006-03-07T11:16:00.000-05:00It's a typo, Jimmy. I fixed it. If I wanted to use...It's a typo, Jimmy. I fixed it. If I wanted to use asterisks, I'd use 'em.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846875103765617419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1141747055715183952006-03-07T10:57:00.000-05:002006-03-07T10:57:00.000-05:00Why do I think you're doing that foetry thing agai...Why do I think you're doing that foetry thing again, Joshua: Where you put a little space between the last e in LEGITIMATE so as not to raise the ire of Cate or some shit? C'mon...blog or don't blog.<BR/><BR/>I don't think the unofficial etc is all that flarfy: and I don't see much of a dynamic being played out at AWP. Like, if you're even *there* you've bought into something most poets I respect haven't. Have fun, tho--<BR/><BR/>xxxjimmyJim Behrlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08581472923510160635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-1141714014103112272006-03-07T01:46:00.000-05:002006-03-07T01:46:00.000-05:00Hey Josh,I think this is spot on, & very helpful f...Hey Josh,<BR/><BR/>I think this is spot on, & very helpful for my own thinking. It strikes me that a marriage of A & C need not figure as explicitly theological--rather, couldn't the impetus be to imbue A-type poetry with truly Critical ambition? I mean, a poetry that functions not as self-absorbed critique of the contemporary poetic institutions, solely of interest to local practictioners, but as therapy for C-ish pretensions? Viewing the hunger for metaphysical grandeur as a positive block obstructing its real thirst to articulate exemplars for a future universality? (As in, what if the visionary company put the accent on company, seeing the visionary as one way, & possibly not the best, to resist the drag of the iron cage?) How's that different from plain old A-ism? Well, say that the problem is too positivistic a sense of the present. Marry C and A to invent a future. Etc. Anyway, this sounds like a program I've already signed up for, except without saying it. Kudos. & have fun in Austin. I'll be there in spirit, at least insofar as I'm reading J. L.<BR/><BR/>All best,<BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com