08-03-2012, 12:27 PM
I was responding only to: "It is pure nonsense with absolutely no message at all....and that is the point.", etc.
The poem is clearly a combination of a satirical work (the poem as published in the initial thread) and overt derision ("I am becoming quite concerned by the sudden duck-dive in to the ostensibly muddy and shallow depths in which some writers are dabbling"). It needs to be judged on its success or otherwise with regard to this. (Honestly, even if it weren't, your intention for it is not privileged.)
I came across a letter by Max Jacob the other day that seems relevant, though of course as Emerson says, "an argument convinces nobody". I'll quote it in case others might get something from it, though:
"I think I can safely tell you to avoid facile satire: satire
blinds the way pride blinds. You don’t get very far on
the strength of having said: “Those idiots! Those middle-
class philistines!” and so on, with variations. Take it for
granted that everyone is quite perfect; it’s very salutary
to start from that lofty general assumption and then
gradually lower the individual sphere by finding little
blemishes in it… Great works of literature are premised
on optimism. Since the nineteenth century there have
been no great works, because of Flaubert and his stupid
pessimism. Balzac was inclined to see genius everywhere,
and so he was optimistic: although he is not an artist, his
work is great on account of its optimism. Think about that."
Thanks for the opportunity to do a little thinking. And the cute jab in your response, though if you want to widen the scope beyond the poem itself, my understanding is that such discourse belongs elsewhere.
-pk
The poem is clearly a combination of a satirical work (the poem as published in the initial thread) and overt derision ("I am becoming quite concerned by the sudden duck-dive in to the ostensibly muddy and shallow depths in which some writers are dabbling"). It needs to be judged on its success or otherwise with regard to this. (Honestly, even if it weren't, your intention for it is not privileged.)
I came across a letter by Max Jacob the other day that seems relevant, though of course as Emerson says, "an argument convinces nobody". I'll quote it in case others might get something from it, though:
"I think I can safely tell you to avoid facile satire: satire
blinds the way pride blinds. You don’t get very far on
the strength of having said: “Those idiots! Those middle-
class philistines!” and so on, with variations. Take it for
granted that everyone is quite perfect; it’s very salutary
to start from that lofty general assumption and then
gradually lower the individual sphere by finding little
blemishes in it… Great works of literature are premised
on optimism. Since the nineteenth century there have
been no great works, because of Flaubert and his stupid
pessimism. Balzac was inclined to see genius everywhere,
and so he was optimistic: although he is not an artist, his
work is great on account of its optimism. Think about that."
Thanks for the opportunity to do a little thinking. And the cute jab in your response, though if you want to widen the scope beyond the poem itself, my understanding is that such discourse belongs elsewhere.
-pk
(07-31-2012, 04:26 PM)tectak Wrote: On a related note, it is none of the things you think it is. What else do I need to say to show that the whole piece is just rubbish. Oh,oh. Is your feathered vent showing?
Best,
tectak
