-If it's important that poetry "remain rooted in the human voice", then the poet should probably not read or write any poetry. His poems should take place only between persons, not broadcast or recorded in any way (these machines are too distant from the human voice).
-Any statement of poetics needs to be accompanied by an enactment of those poetics (statements of poetics can often, themselves, be this enactment). A statement like "language needs to remain rooted in the human voice" can mean enormously different things given different demonstrations. This is because language has no denotative capacity.
-The term "good" is frivolous. Frivolous words are important, but it's amazing how often serious criticism criticizes from the perspective of what the critic thinks is "good" (whether or not they use the word).
-I don't want to write "good" poetry. I want to write "worthwhile" poetry. I am very skeptical about what this means.
-making poems should be considered such worthwhile work that publishing them is not even necessary.
-I would rather my poems display pathology than imitate health.
-All language is infinitely frivolous and interesting.
-I'm almost as suspicious of iconoclasm as I am of icons.
-I'm more interested in what my failures in reading can teach me about how reading happens, than I am in "reading well".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment