Dissenting from My Dissent


  1. Dark Fantom
    Dark Fantom January 5, 2009 at 7:04 pm .

    Joe, <BR/><BR/>Amen.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>- DF

  2. Joseph Hutchison
    Joseph Hutchison January 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm .

    Dear DF—<BR/><BR/>"… ultimately, I will describe poets on their individual terms, and leave the grouping to those who find it important."<BR/><BR/>Amen!<BR/><BR/>And I think I’ve expended far too much energy on all of this, all to make the point—badly, I guess—that the labels and the theories distract from the work. I understand the frame being part of the work, if the artist wants it to be;

  3. Dark Fantom
    Dark Fantom January 5, 2009 at 8:14 am .

    Joseph, <BR/><BR/>I do apologize if in my haste I didnt make clear that my comment about the tenor of the debate was not directed at you, nor at Hutchison. But rather a general response to what I took as a general question from you on your previous post, to poets under 40. <BR/><BR/>I wouldnt say you specificaly have said anything that I felt damaged the discussion, but this new topic strand

  4. Joseph Hutchison
    Joseph Hutchison January 5, 2009 at 5:20 am .

    Hello, DF—<BR/><BR/>I’m intrigued by the conclusion of your post:<BR/><BR/>"There have been times throughout history when the avant-garde has been reviled, and times in history when the classical has been reviled. They both seem to think the other will someday go away.<BR/><BR/>Neither will. Because they represent sides of a vast spectrum of human taste and interest. Because they are both true.

  5. Dark Fantom
    Dark Fantom January 5, 2009 at 5:02 am .

    Joseph, <BR/><BR/>In a previous post on this topic you pondered what under-40 poets think of this debate. As a young poet/visual artist (shy of 25), I appreciate any debate that attempts to better describe a poets work. Labels can be reductive and are often vague and ignore large swaths of work- as has been pointed out in this debate. The point that I havent seen mentioned on any of the posts and

  6. Joseph Hutchison
    Joseph Hutchison January 1, 2009 at 8:33 pm .

    Thanks, Brian, for steering me back to the comment stream on Seth’s blog. I left my own there just now regarding Knott and Spicer.<BR/><BR/>And Seth—see my <A HREF="http://perpetualbird.blogspot.com/2009/01/ordinary-reader-contra-jargon.html&quot; REL="nofollow">post</A> responding to your comment in detail….

  7. Seth Abramson
    Seth Abramson January 1, 2009 at 2:50 pm .

    Hi J.,<BR/><BR/>If you click on the link in the middle of the post–the word "Cognitive-Semantic" has been made into a hyperlink–it takes you to a post from several days ago in which I did exactly as you asked. Three times, actually. I took three poets and explained their strains of Cognitive-Semantic semiotics, without jargon. Best,<BR/><BR/>Seth

  8. brian a j salchert
    brian a j salchert January 1, 2009 at 5:31 am .

    Read Seth’s post, and Klassnik and Knott really add color in the comment space.<BR/><BR/>The other day I did a Joshua Beckman search, and there is a video of him reading a short poem that has a flarfy flavor to it;<BR/>but he is at AAP and I especially like his "Oh, atlas" poem.<BR/><BR/>All of a sudden everyone is building forts. I wonder who is standing watch from night to night.<BR/><BR/>

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Verified by ExactMetrics
Verified by MonsterInsights