john adams wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:42A3EC62.6020004@skypoint.com...
>>>
>>
>>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.
Wel, if so, then the facts are even more dismal. I could understand such
a huge library of gecko drool if it were merely meant as intrusive
blather, but as an expression of "poetry" (either as commonly understood
or as a manifestation of the surrealist "Poetic") they are dismal beyond
comprehension. I even have a hard time understanding how a human
imagination is capable of being so unaware of its alienation from
imagination. I am not totally convinced that there are brands of Usenet
assholes who wouldn't mind clogging the groups with fake "poetic" vomit,
since I've seen plenty of similar examples. But - let's give you that
point, and still retain my astonishment at the sheer bulk of banality
that exists in his words.
>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
>
Certainly, but he does seem - after so many years - to have constructed
a very tight arnmor against any such revelations. A person who has
obviously spent so much time and effort steeling himself against "poetic
insurgencies" may well be - for all purposes - beyond healing, as much
as I am convinced that poetry can be accessed by all. It is a long path
from the natural poetic ability of the pre-schooled child to such a
blinding pile of dull rust, and it would require a certain heroic effort
to - first - unlearn the spoiling - and - second - to reopen that dried
up well. I've seen no sign - at all - that Robert - with or without the
dubious quality of "sincerity" - is willing to take even baby steps in
that direction. One awaits such an Apocalypse...
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 |
|