| Re: Up Pops Oppenheimer |
Posted via Supernews, ht .. |
| john adams (johnqadamsiiinospam@minusthis.yahoo.com) |
2005/06/07 00:43 |
"Dale Houstman" <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:42A51700.1070300@skypoint.com...
>
>
> 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.
The two possibilities are equally feasible, with the exception that
one doubts why an individual would devote so much personal time
clogging up the channels, as it were. The 'subversive act' gets old
and loses luster after so many years.
>>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...
I don't really know if Robert is capable of better poetry or improving his
judgement and skills in writing or not, though I tend to believe that no
one must be entirely land-locked forever. And it is still debatable whether
it is simply a weak charade or not in the first place. Of course it is a wall
that OUGHT to be struck down (I would have written that in italics).
Whether it ever could or would mine as well be reduced to one and the
same thing to you or me.
In the course of critiquing, the negative and the positive are both outlined
as a means to the same end: to rectify some aspect or improve the act of
artistic expression. That is the approach to a useful critique; how the
person responds to the information - physical/environmental limitations
notwithstanding - is up to him.
As for apocalypses creative ones are the most beautiful kind.
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 |
|
|