08-26-2017, 12:08 AM
It seems to me that there should, almost, always be a risk in creative writing. A risk of being wrong, failing, just being lame or other. All the other things that come up. Risk in itself is interesting. Sophisticated risk is better. It seems to me, since most people when having to think about communicating with others have to think in words, the methods of communicating, grammar, all the aspects, spelling, punctuation, so on, should be utilized. Used for emphasis and nuance, and so on. Every detail of written language can be utilized to expand meaning, understanding, thought patterns, brain patterns, emotional patterns, emotions, feelings. You expand language, you expand experience. Even foolishness expands experience. Jazz, jive, bombings. Expand experience and survive. Rules exist so that breaking them has a context to expand them. To me there is mere poetry and poetry. Does anyone care to explain to me what my paranormal distinctions mean or amount to?
I believe in biography-history, like space-time. History-biography like time-space. I believe in realms, levels, layers, dimensions, universes, worlds; and all worlds are one world: and that is poetry. Poetry is that all worlds are one world, and struggle and conflict and destruction and creation. Simple terms. Mere poetry is the same thing minus true creation. True creation is a reality beyond perception, that gets perceived gradually by reality. Reality is sometimes slow on the uptake. I keep getting told I'm wrong.
It seems to me, at the time, we're living in a Robert Frost aesthetic. A requirement. Where we have to write poems with an unambiguous surface to be enjoyed, and an ambiguous or textured depth to be considered. I myself am bored by textured, layered stuff. And I'm bored by one-dimensional stuff. I want the zombies to start walking the earth already. And that would become boring after a few weeks, we're so accustomed and used to it. An alien spaceship could land tomorrow and would be as commonplace as Trump president of the U. S. and 9-11 by October. Word games haven't been funny or interesting since Lewis Carroll. And you can make allusions to Browning and Hopkins all you feel the need to, but no one is going to find it equally interesting, for the most part, but people you have no reason to consort with.
If you follow the modern tenets of Pound or W. C. Williams you'll wind up rapping for a living. If you follow Eliot or Joyce people insinuate from you the same things they insinuate from Eliot and Joyce. If you write like Rimbaud fans, Bukowski won't be able to understand you, if you write like Bukowski, Rimbaud fans will pretend to understand you, even though they know better. And if you write like Shakespeare people will think of you as a poseur, even though everyone you've ever met in your whole life has criticized your writing negatively because it wasn't in the same league as Shakespeare. League and Style: That should be my next discussion board topic.
I believe in biography-history, like space-time. History-biography like time-space. I believe in realms, levels, layers, dimensions, universes, worlds; and all worlds are one world: and that is poetry. Poetry is that all worlds are one world, and struggle and conflict and destruction and creation. Simple terms. Mere poetry is the same thing minus true creation. True creation is a reality beyond perception, that gets perceived gradually by reality. Reality is sometimes slow on the uptake. I keep getting told I'm wrong.
It seems to me, at the time, we're living in a Robert Frost aesthetic. A requirement. Where we have to write poems with an unambiguous surface to be enjoyed, and an ambiguous or textured depth to be considered. I myself am bored by textured, layered stuff. And I'm bored by one-dimensional stuff. I want the zombies to start walking the earth already. And that would become boring after a few weeks, we're so accustomed and used to it. An alien spaceship could land tomorrow and would be as commonplace as Trump president of the U. S. and 9-11 by October. Word games haven't been funny or interesting since Lewis Carroll. And you can make allusions to Browning and Hopkins all you feel the need to, but no one is going to find it equally interesting, for the most part, but people you have no reason to consort with.
If you follow the modern tenets of Pound or W. C. Williams you'll wind up rapping for a living. If you follow Eliot or Joyce people insinuate from you the same things they insinuate from Eliot and Joyce. If you write like Rimbaud fans, Bukowski won't be able to understand you, if you write like Bukowski, Rimbaud fans will pretend to understand you, even though they know better. And if you write like Shakespeare people will think of you as a poseur, even though everyone you've ever met in your whole life has criticized your writing negatively because it wasn't in the same league as Shakespeare. League and Style: That should be my next discussion board topic.
.