|
CestMoi posted:I wanted to post this in the Walt Whitman thread, but it turns out that has been archived after all 5 posts in it so I'm going to post this here: I accidentally watched Steve ROggenbuck (who is bad) What don't you like about Roggenbuck? Should we mention rad intro books for the OP? Making Your Own Days by Kenneth Koch is the best. quote:Much of the difficulty of reading poetry comes from unfamiliarity, from not being able to take the suggestions the poem gives as to how to read it. It’s possible, too, to be misdirected by teachers and critics, so that poems are read in an unprofitable way. Common mistaken ideas about how to read poetry include the Hidden Meaning assumption, which directs one to more or less ignore the surface of the poem in a quest for some elusive and momentous significance that the poet has buried amid the words and music. This idea probably comes from the fact that, being moved by a poem, one assumes an important religious, philosophical, or historical cause for being moved and tries to find it hidden someplace in the poem; whereas in fact a few words rightly placed can be moving if they catch a moment of life — almost any moment; if, amidst all the blather and babble of imprecise, uncertain language in which we live, there is something better, some undeniable little beautiful bit of light. This is given to us, of course, by the music and the words, not something that they conceal. Important, and at first unseeable, meanings may be in poems as they may be in other experiences, but there is no way to find them except by having the experiences. It's not the nature of poems to be clues, or collections of clues, so to read them as if they were is not to properly experience them, thus to be lost. Many people talking about poetry are lost, and even more people have given up reading poetry because they knew they were lost and didn’t like it. A poem may turn out to be a deep and complex experience, but the experience begins by responding to the language of poetry in front of you, not by detective work that puts that response aside.
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
CestMoi posted:I find his badness inhibits my enjoyment of him. Okay, let me try again. What makes him so bad?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:I don't really have much of a reason it's just uninteresting and bad. It sounds bad. We have bi-polar tastes. Have you read any Peter Orlovsky? I think Roggenbuck straight up jacked his poo poo. He's much, much better but not as well known. You might like it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
You might be right. I'm not overly familiar with Whitman. I was more thinking about how Orlovsky enjambs disparate lines in order to by-pass the intellect and get at an emotion. It seems like Roggenbuck does the same poo poo but in the vernacular of social media.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
A human heart posted:I was reading this article about Gerald Murnane recently and apparently when he was teaching creative writing he would always tell people to not write about the ocean, because he considers it an 'enemy'. Haven't heard that name in awhile. Are you Australian? Best Poem Ever. The -- Ocean.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
A human heart posted:NZ actually, but I know about him because he's had stuff published by Dalkey Archive. Oh cool. I didn't know that. A lot of Australian critics want to put him on the shelf with Bolano. I'll have to check Dalkey.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
double post.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 06:06
|
|