Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Nemo Hill
I do think humility is the liberating answer to that conundrum
|
Nemo,
Exactly. This is critical. It's not a bad thing to ask ourselves "What are we doing, and why are we doing it?" I think those are natural questions.
And as much as I don't wish to disagree with Rose, who I think very much deserves to be more hopeful, I don't think it's mere marketing when done honestly and with a sense of humility. I, for one, am constantly feeling my way through the dark, asking myself "Is this the right step? Is that the right direction?" It's the uncertainty that makes me wish to keep trying to answer these questions.
The idea that we can see everything in the practice is essentially a remnant of both Neo-Platonist Christianity and Romanticism with a big R. Even Frank O'Hara was making fun of that one in the 50's.
Everything is in the poems, he said, laughing. Seeing the poem as detached object is from the 30's, something from
the Fugitives and the
New Critics. If we're still supporting those notions, we're as reactionary as we think other people think we are.
I'm firmly convinced that no-one here (especially not here) has an unexamined poetics. I'm persuaded everyone believes the unexamined poem is not worth writing. Otherwise it would all be Howls and Barbaric Yawps.
So really, Nemo, I don't think you've said too much. Maybe this is even the start of a long overdue conversation...
Thanks,
Bill
(ps. Funny, my spell-checker doesn't like the word 'yawp'
...