Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:26:37 -0500
Message-ID: <42A3EC62.6020004@skypoint.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:25:38 -0500
From: Dale Houstman <dmh7@skypoint.com>
Reply-To: dmh7@skypoint.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
Subject: Re: Up Pops Oppenheimer
References: <Voednej_9o_AoQTfRVn-qw@comcast.com> <429A45F7.53D74E87@sympatico.ca> <119l4314ni3q4c@corp.supernews.com> <429AEF8F.AF756EF6@sympatico.ca> <119n3cgoahsfo01@corp.supernews.com> <429BCF8C.C21E2828@sympatico.ca> <119nvjiqg53m917@corp.supernews.com> <429E55BA.6179F461@sympatico.ca> <119sqnpnp3s926a@corp.supernews.com> <42A3CD22.F9253D9E@sympatico.ca> <11a7oi42o5si2a7@corp.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 49
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.86.45.43
X-Trace: sv3-9OinyxdYpRMeLYP4CbLlaitsoZsm8cxCLdiTTsg6nA09JD0JAoOggHY2umgWu8QyIM/nAqVg44+Qfg4!f773cEOyi5cpiXujac42cEEQIyMgpPXK7cqav7bjxrZxVIWMnCAKw4VaENNbBd7gTquj
X-Complaints-To: abuse@skypoint.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@skypoint.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:2018
john adams wrote:
> "Robert Morpheal" <morpheal@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:42A3CD22.F9253D9E@sympatico.ca...
>
>> john adams wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In other words you're full of hot air and the deeper meaning that
>>> I had supposedly missed isn't within your grasp either, so why
>>> not talk about nothing instead.
>>
>> I try to be as obscurantist as possible without talking over top of
>> your and others' heads. Most often I succeed at that. Best of if
>> neither of us really knows what the other is talking about. If it
>> were any other way one or both might end up getting killed.
>
>
> Obscurantist, yes. Whether you risk the chance of talking over
> anyone's head is another matter. I think you simply have a greater
> chance of talking away heads with your intentionally obscure - but
> should I remind you meaningless (by design) - rhetoric. You might
> think you're being flashy and cunning, but in the end you're only
> fooling yourself...
>
> -john
>
>
John, I think Robert is aware of his "poetry's" effects, and I seriously
doubt he has any real regard for his - or anyone else's - poetry. A
person who often posts 20 to 30 or more poems a day isn't really
engaging poetry "where it lives" or considering what poetry might even
be other than a way to fill up a group. He's been doing this for years
now, and one can not really distinguish one poem from another, as they
all yabber on rather listlessty, usually blandly rummaging through this
or that common "idea" on relations and such. Much of what he is
supposedly saying could be said better in an eighth of the space, if he
were concerned with what is most marvelous in language. But he isn't,
and I suspect he knows that he isn't. His saying that he is being
obscure but trying not to talk over others' heads is just a defensive
reflex of the sort he has posted many times in response to comments on
his flat drivel. The fact is there are many poets who dabble in the
evocative nature of ambiguity, but Robert is not amongst that crowd. His
meanings are usually all too clear, as are the manifold failures to make
those tepid meanings "make love on the page."
dmh
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |
|