[Clay Stockton]

In fairness to Jason, he did pose this question only because he was invited to on another thread. Like a mensch, he went and did it.

I think we may have shot the messenger.

--CS


Editing in to note that I was the first shooter. I include myself in the scolding above, and I wasn't singling out anybody in particular. Not even Michael Cantor. My first post above made a flip remark about verbose over-analysis, which was supposed to be, oh, some kind of sophisticated rhetorical maneuver indicating that Janet had cheesed me off. I didn't mean to imply that Jason was verbosely over-analyzing in his initial post.

Alright, enough out of me.



[This message has been edited by Clay Stockton (edited June 14, 2006).]

[Janet Kenny]

Sowwy Cway.

[Clay Stockton]

Janet, it happens.

[Janet Kenny]

And will again.
Peace

[Henry Quince]

Michael C, I’ve often admired your robust pronouncements, but this time I have to say you’ve been unfair to Jason and any of the rest of us who think craft issues are sometimes worth a bit of discussion. If a given topic isn’t worth your time to discuss, why spend your time crapping on it for those who think otherwise?

If your objection is to all craft or “theory” discussion in general, why single out this thread? Why no similar comments from you on the “West Chester Reviews and Gossip” thread, for example? That concerns a conference (which only a tiny fraction of us were able to attend) where, among other things, craft matters and “theory” were discussed — no doubt including prosody issues involving scansion.

To be quite clear, I’m very far from objecting to the West Chester thread — just wondering why you singled out Jason’s thread (which he was invited to start) as a place to argue that everything but actual writing is a waste of time.

Henry




[This message has been edited by Henry Quince (edited June 14, 2006).]

[Michael Cantor]

Henry -

You misunderstand my agenda. My response was aimed very specifically at comments Jason made about his poetry, and his ambitions for his poetry, in several lengthy posts. Those posts have been deleted. Without knowing what I was responding to, I think you are jumping to a conclusion based on seeing only half the dialogue. And, without the slightest clue as to what my interests were at West Chester you apparently assume that, if I was there, I attended and lustily cheered through every panel discussion and lecture, from Russian translations through dramatic monologue through meter. C'mon!

Additionally, you comment, If your objection is to all craft or theory” discussion in general..., and assume I argue that everything but actual writing is a waste of time. But, Henry, I never said that. What I did say was that the best writers...focus on craft, not theory. And I was addressing myself specifically to Jason. (My apologies, Jason, for dragging this up after you deleted it.) Based on the poems he has posted to date, I felt that Jason was far too concerned with discussing the fine points of the concepts of running, and ignoring the fact that first you have to learn to walk. And I don't see what's wrong with either making that point, or trying to point to examples of other writers as motivation.

Also, I have to distinguish between "craft" and "theory", as I used it in my post. Possibly we have different definitions, but to me "craft" is the mechanics of making a poem work - using rhyme properly, knowing how to mix slant and perfect rhymes, tuning the meter and the rhythm to underline the intent of the poem, using metrical tricks to emphasize certain phrases, working with sound, knowing and utilizing the difference between a long sound and a clipped sound, playing with assonance and consonance - and I adore "craft", it is the heart of the poem, and will discuss it until dawn. I also believe that the best way to work on your craft is to write poetry (and, obviously, to workshop it and get feedback.)

"Theory" is far more divorced (in my mind) from the mechanics, the context and the quality of a specific poem; and is more concerned with values and labels (Is that a trochaic line, or does it start with a headless iamb...) that very often float in air, too distant from the poem in question. It's a great deal of fun for some, but I personally feel that it's a dangerous kind of fun, that it can lead to obscure and sterile writing, and that a poet's emphasis (as opposed to a scholar's) should be on craft.

I hope that clears up some of what I was after. If you're still unhappy, perhaps we can take this to the the PMs or, in more Corleonian terms, to the mattresses.

Michael



[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited June 15, 2006).]

[Jason Kerr]

(Henry, Michael - guys, shhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I'm writing.)
Okay, here is my shortened ode to this cut short thread - an humble acquiesence:

The chair that I imagined

It's lines were like infinity's ass;
the curvatures and slope divined
an apparition of reclined
annunciation.

But 'twas an oafish prophecy
too early come to profit from;
I leant upon its grace - astounded?
I was floored.



[This message has been edited by Jason Kerr (edited June 15, 2006).]

[Tim Love]

"Theory" is far more divorced (in my mind) from the mechanics, the context and the quality of a specific poem; and is more concerned with values and labels - to me, theory can be condensed conclusions offered after having read and appreciated loads of poems. It can make the implicit explicit, so that we have a shared vocabulary to discuss our likes. It can help us to appreciate pieces that at first appear alien to our aesthetics (it can widen our minds). It can be used to help debunk assertions about what's Right and Wrong in poetry. Even the strange stuff at the theory end of the LitEssay-LitCrit-LitTheory spectrum can contain the odd useful scrap.
I wouldn't expect a sports player to be well versed in theories of perception and aerodynamics, but sports coaches are increasingly turning to theorists to understand how to deal with spinning balls, etc, and the players benefit.

[Tim Love]

I am still interested in reading quality examples where the distinction between met/non is blurred. http://www.textetc.com/aspects/a-open-forms.html has some comments/refs about why people might distrust but not fully abandon met. There's some other stuff on my http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~tpl/texts/looseningup.html
page. Books like "Modernist Form" (J. S. Childs) try to show how some of the functions of rhyme and met are now partly achieved by other means.

[Janet Kenny]

Tim,
I suppose one could say that poets were trying to create a form of notation--like dancers. Dancers know that it simply isn't possible to describe everything. Poets will have to accept that as well, I believe.
The other difficulty is that poets must be pretty developed before they know what is worth measuring. The danger is that poetry might get into the hands of the bean counters and Orpheus be swamped by drudges.
A cautious approach by poets is advisable. It depends on temperaments. Sometimes it's best to let others decribe what the poet has done.
Janet