Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:40:50 -0500
Message-ID: <42A51700.1070300@skypoint.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:39:44 -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> <42A3EC62.6020004@skypoint.com> <11a987fcs1dfmc3@corp.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 68
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.86.45.43
X-Trace: sv3-yqeKNu/jh1Vhmyt8iJE79ogk1v4EknvbkJ7qEPLCzGnhUTfC297bT1xuqYr3kVmL70flQ4oFJLIRAkN!ZzLFc9AhaijlC1KKgVBGsXqK1JNlYPeLeZD6yxubtUxt/rXdVNaAgSx9kkT4KIObrqkX
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:2020
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 |
|