| Re: Up Pops Oppenheimer |
Posted via Supernews, ht .. |
| john adams (johnqadamsiiinospam@minusthis.yahoo.com) |
2005/06/06 13:16 |
"Dale Houstman" <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:42A3EC62.6020004@skypoint.com...
>
>
> 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."
True enough, but I think Bob truly believes he is being crafty in his
"abstract" writing. As for his poetry, obviously he believes in what he
is doing or he wouldn't be doing it so regularly, unless he just gets
satisfaction out of the act of writing alone. What he needs to do in
relation to writing is challenge himself - his emotions, his imagination,
his treatment of the process, and his understanding of what makes
writing interesting - yet he seems resigned in that regard to cranking out
the abstract-mundane every day. If it is lack of passion or care, I
think it is just as much the lack of awareness cultivated within himself
vis-a-vis writing that is limiting him. In any case, it is a wall that ought
to be struck down.
-john
|
| 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 |
|
|