Monday, November 22, 2004
Again, speechless in the face of what we are not. Link. That all things change, and that out of all extremes comes the seed of their opposite until it grows to dominance, this is taiji, but to see it happen to our country, the goodness which we considered American, is . . . hmm. I'm learning. Wow. I am inarticulate again, and I seem to be so often in so many ways these days.
And I'm already used to this way of living, as if it were normal.
Switching tracks: Is anyone else struck by the interchange between Josh Corey and Mike Snider? Lots of interesting and provocative things said. What gets me now, though, is that they are not actually communicating with each other, much, I mean. For example, Mike makes the statement, something to the effect of "some people tend their little flame and don't realize that poetry is guttering." (I'm winging it by a not-so-reliable memory, so humor me) Josh's response? "I never said poetry is guttering!" I mean, didn't Mike just accuse Josh of not being aware of poetry's alleged guttering? And Mike uses some pretty harsh language (in my recollection, arrogant, and pathetic or some synonym of pathetic) describing Josh's p.o.v. on the 'subject' (not that they are even talking about the same thing), and then acts as if he had been the height of measured response when Josh responds.
A case study of misprision, in a sense, using what there is not as something to respond to for what it is, but to repond to as if it were only a bridge to what one wants to project. Sigh. I'm probably doing it, now, too. (and isn't it curious that Mike basically holds the comic position, that all at least potentially can fit and be whole (like his subscription to Wilbur's 'comely &' position), while Josh takes the tragic pose ("this vale of fucking tears.")?)
And I'm already used to this way of living, as if it were normal.
Switching tracks: Is anyone else struck by the interchange between Josh Corey and Mike Snider? Lots of interesting and provocative things said. What gets me now, though, is that they are not actually communicating with each other, much, I mean. For example, Mike makes the statement, something to the effect of "some people tend their little flame and don't realize that poetry is guttering." (I'm winging it by a not-so-reliable memory, so humor me) Josh's response? "I never said poetry is guttering!" I mean, didn't Mike just accuse Josh of not being aware of poetry's alleged guttering? And Mike uses some pretty harsh language (in my recollection, arrogant, and pathetic or some synonym of pathetic) describing Josh's p.o.v. on the 'subject' (not that they are even talking about the same thing), and then acts as if he had been the height of measured response when Josh responds.
A case study of misprision, in a sense, using what there is not as something to respond to for what it is, but to repond to as if it were only a bridge to what one wants to project. Sigh. I'm probably doing it, now, too. (and isn't it curious that Mike basically holds the comic position, that all at least potentially can fit and be whole (like his subscription to Wilbur's 'comely &' position), while Josh takes the tragic pose ("this vale of fucking tears.")?)
Comments:
<< Home
I can't tell if you're joking Laura--if you are, forgive me taking the question seriously.
I'm not on either side. I think the two sides have created each other, kind of, and missed the mutual point in the process. If I had to choose sides, of course I'd go with Josh, it should go without saying. I admire what he has to say on the subject. He may be locked in some unnecessary definitions ("irritable reaching . . ." &c), but Mike is more inconsistent, though he doesn't know it, and more in need of the stability he thinks his logic generates, so therefore more removed from a flexible and open reality. So that's if I had to pick sides for some dumb reason, but I don't, and I like being able to see with my own eyes just fine.
I'm not on either side. I think the two sides have created each other, kind of, and missed the mutual point in the process. If I had to choose sides, of course I'd go with Josh, it should go without saying. I admire what he has to say on the subject. He may be locked in some unnecessary definitions ("irritable reaching . . ." &c), but Mike is more inconsistent, though he doesn't know it, and more in need of the stability he thinks his logic generates, so therefore more removed from a flexible and open reality. So that's if I had to pick sides for some dumb reason, but I don't, and I like being able to see with my own eyes just fine.
As far as tragic v. comic, as represented by these two guys, I'm undecided. I think it can go either or both ways at once--that is, that the two modes are not by their natures separable, unless the viewer/experiencer is unable to sustain the simultaneous vision. Again, each is created out of the same question, and pretend in their faux-separate existence that this is not so.
But Josh's approach is certainly more generative than Mike's, no doubting that. And that's absolutely the priority for any artist, and what maybe their respective positions should be judged by.
btw, I just want to say, again, that I very much like your recent poems, the repeating phrase ones. Absolutely lovely, if I were an editor of a journal I'd ask you to send them in.
Post a Comment
But Josh's approach is certainly more generative than Mike's, no doubting that. And that's absolutely the priority for any artist, and what maybe their respective positions should be judged by.
btw, I just want to say, again, that I very much like your recent poems, the repeating phrase ones. Absolutely lovely, if I were an editor of a journal I'd ask you to send them in.
<< Home
