| oroborus of theory? |
[Apr. 23rd, 2008|11:57 pm] |
http://allegrezza.blogspot.com/
I was surprised to read that Bill's a fan of the New Critics, yet mostly champions and writes poetry out of the LANGUAGE vein. I do like a lot of his comments about upholding the state of new poetry. With dissolved and evaporated grains of salt, I listen to people teling me there is nothing good being written or music being made.
He does somewhat think that formal work is maybe not the way to go in order to get people interested. My first workshop experience was mostly in New Formalism, with some contemporary regional and international poets tossed in. Even though I don't understand Stevens as well as I could, I get him more than I do most of the poems with experimental structures and geometries. It's not to say I don't like experimenting with dictions and alphabets, but I am not sure I have the Fibbonacian chops that can be used to decipher, what to me, seems like an exercise in grammatological semiotics. Do each of the LANGUAGE poets have their own system of encryption and are we being rude to ask for help in clarification?
This kind of discussion is exactly why I have been delving into the poetics of Olson. He seems to be steeping his messages within the cloak of conventional speech, but still leaves the choice of verification squarely and solely within the scope of the reader's discerning judgment on whether to seek meaning within or to bring meaning to the table and overlay it onto the poem to see if it fits. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
busstogate's journal
