tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post8855790097390187998..comments2023-11-03T06:31:07.882-04:00Comments on Cahiers de Corey: Thick as a BrickAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06846875103765617419noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-43317364071896060752010-06-01T16:34:37.712-04:002010-06-01T16:34:37.712-04:00I figgered someone else would come along and say s...I figgered someone else would come along and say so, but... for the record, TSE's chemistry was faulty. A catalyst changes the rate, i.e., speed up or or slow down a reaction, but it doesn't create or cause one. <br /><br />Also, the reaction he describes produces sulfuric acid, not sulphurous acid. <br /><br />I don't suppose this changes the point much, or maybe it even helps it out, but still... I welcome corrections to my own understanding of Eliot's use of this figure, natch.<br /><br />Cheers, & thanx for this!Don Sharehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03446230480847015806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-52196419572113903182010-05-30T06:43:19.634-04:002010-05-30T06:43:19.634-04:00Interesting post I suppose.
Speaking as a poet, I...Interesting post I suppose.<br /><br />Speaking as a poet, I don't think there is any grand great way poetry can change the larger world. I can't see anything inherent in poetry that makes it superior to sculpture, painting, chess or any artistic medium - if an artist has a strong mind he will be able to make and find meaning in whatever medium he works<br /><br />Very abstract article you've written there, I have trouble finding much use for the ideas in it. I think great poetry can be made from simple delight in the sound of language, yet it makes sense to me that a great poem might as well also include content of semantic and literary meaning. Anyway, best wishes, nice to "meet" you.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03468472926560114275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-66022181960472661912010-05-24T15:02:39.616-04:002010-05-24T15:02:39.616-04:00Hey, if I can't make grandiose statements on a...Hey, if I can't make grandiose statements on a blog, where can I make 'em?<br /><br />I suppose my statement requires me to separate the poetic - the capacity for dematerialized poiesis in language - from poetry per se. A cop-out, perhaps. But I am currently digesting another essay of Scalapino's on "Eco-Language" that might help me make this more convincing.<br /><br />Now if you'll excuse me, I must return to playing with my new iPad - which so far has done a dandy job of blog-commenting.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846875103765617419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-53264595410974702482010-05-23T11:40:53.836-04:002010-05-23T11:40:53.836-04:00All honor to Jethro Tull.All honor to Jethro Tull.Archambeauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17273511539172747550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-28084634489875719262010-05-23T10:18:30.588-04:002010-05-23T10:18:30.588-04:00A pleasure to listen to your thinking in this post...A pleasure to listen to your thinking in this post. Some prodded thoughts in return:<br /><br />Both Spicer and Auden tend to get quoted as if they were tsk-ing over their own futility, but I think they're close to where your post ends. Spicer implied that no one listens to poetry in the same way that no one listens to <i>the ocean</i>; the ocean may be many things, but a feckless liberal it's not. (Viz Bunting on the <i>The Cantos</i>: "These are the Alps, fool!") And Auden was eulogizing a reactionary aesthete who'd joined a civil war; to quote myself (since I'm conveniently at hand), "Auden's statement meant not that poetry doesn't act, but that poetry specifically acts to <i>make</i> nothing happen. 'It survives in the valley of its making,' far from the motivating-somethings busily thrown and stacked up and knocked to the ground by executives and politicians and armies and army corps; 'it survives, a <i>way</i> of happening, a mouth.'"<br /><br />"Politics" can't be kept out of poetry any more than "history," "class," or "lovers" can. But just as reading Merrill and Berkson didn't make me rich, and reading Swinburne and Spicer didn't turn around my libido, reading Tennyson and Mac Low didn't sway my voting. I think that's just as well -- would we really have wanted to give Bush a Kipling as well as a FOX? -- but then I'm preaching from the choir.<br /><br />Oh, and I sadly agree with Bob: most big sentences that start with "Only poetry can..." end up having to be revised. A couple of paragraphs later you yourself bring in Jethro Tull.Ray Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15998321016748928251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-25733660242695457672010-05-22T19:31:30.994-04:002010-05-22T19:31:30.994-04:00Hey Josh,
Interesting stuff. But this is a hell ...Hey Josh,<br /><br />Interesting stuff. But this is a hell of a big claim:<br /><br />"only poetry can counter the Big Lie of power"<br /><br />Do you really mean -only- poetry? If so, why does nothing else at all do?<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BobArchambeauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17273511539172747550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4096739.post-82879144649273096052010-05-20T10:09:25.731-04:002010-05-20T10:09:25.731-04:00All of your political poetry concerns are answered...All of your political poetry concerns are answered or illustrated in Yakich's THE IMPORTANCE OF PEELING POTATOES IN UKRAINE, published, I think, in 2008. EDUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293375145671086727noreply@blogger.com