Dan, I don't think we disagree. And, surely, I'm not interested in disagreableness, but one should be able to give opinion. I think if you read what I'm saying, I'm not trying to be funny. The strength of a horses' heart is measured at the end of the journey, a proverb says. We can't say poetry is simply by definition. If so, then something is stilted.
A. --- Dan Waber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CatherinE, > > There is definitely a problem involving engagement > with experimental > writing, both practically and as a matter of > personality. And I think > you raise a lot of questions that shouldn't remain > rhetorical. Since > I'm emptying my pockets of change today, here's > another two cents: > > > Can criticism be poetry? > > Of course. I would even take it further and suggest > that it ought to > be as often as appropriate (and I can't think of a > moment when it > wouldn't be appropriate). > > > What is the role of criticism in new/experimental > writing? > > The same as its role in other forms of writing. I > don't say that > flippantly, or as a pat answer. I really think a lot > of the reason why > you don't see an abundance of good writing about > new/experimental/newmedia/hypermedia/etc etc ad > absurdum ad infinitum > is because this question is being asked. If critics > would stop asking > that question start writing criticism it would be > moot. There is no > vocabulary in place with which to properly discuss > these things? They > can invent their own or make new use of what they > have. I believe > poetry is the attempt to express in language that > which language is > incapable of expressing. So a criticism that is also > poetry is what's > most needed right now--if there's a need for a more > active critical > system. > > > What would experimental criticism, as a > counterpart to experimental > > writing, look like? > > Traditionally you can recognize the difference > between a poem and a > criticism by how it looks on the page. One looks > like a poem, one > looks like a prose. Should that change for > experimental things that > maybe don't look like a poem? It can, if it wants to > or needs to. I > don't think it needs to. I think criticism of > experimental writing > could do quite well looking like prose and reading > like prose. Prose > is really good at the things that criticism intends. > And I don't see > anything in experimental writing whose criticism is > uncontainable > within a prose constraint. But, if it were to > develop along other > lines then by all means it would tend towards... > > > Should criticism be more like call&response in > form? > > a call & response, or a collaboration (maybe a short > lived one--a > single ping and a single pong, and that's it). And > in a way I think it > could be argued that all art is that way, a > response, a criticism, to > somethings else, a collaboration that is continuous > and takes place > over the whole of time. But I don't think that's > what you're meaning, > exactly, so I should rein myself in here. > > I think criticism should help interested readers > decide if they should > explore the work being criticized themselves. > There's too damned much > brilliant work out there for me to see it all. I > want a critical > writing to allow me to leverage the critics time and > effort and > education and ability to connect threads into an > overall efficiency > savings for me. I don't have to agree with the > critic, I just need to > know from reading them, if I have any business with > the piece(s) being > written about. > > > Is criticism collaboration? > > Absolutely. In many cases directly between creator > and critic (some of > whom consider themselves Creator), but in any case > in the larger sense > of forming a body of information around an idea that > can be dipped > into usefully by others. > > > Experimental writing doesn't mean there aren't > differences of opinion or > > taste after all. > > No, it sure doesn't. But of all the writing > communities I've been > involved in, the experimental writers I know are the > most touchy when > it comes to differences of opinion, in broad general > terms. There are > plenty of exceptions on all sides. But dropping a > well placed > criticism into the middle of a bunch of experimental > poets is going to > cause a lot more psychic disturbance than dropping a > comparable > criticism into the middle of any other group that I > have experience > with. Critical conversations (see "Godwin's law") > tend to devolve into > name calling and pouting and kicking the dirt and > taking my ball home, > that's human nature it seems. But in an group of > experimental writers, > I think the tendency is even more pronounced. I > think it has a lot to > do with risk though, too, and the nature of > creativity. If a > traditional poet is taking a risk in showing others > their works, the > experimental poet is taking a much larger risk. The > form could be > enough to get the content dismissed, and having the > content of > something personally created dismissed is extremely > difficult to > separate from being personally dismissed. It would > be like someone > telling you you were a big fat jerk for driving a > car that you > invented to run on unrecycleable trash. The initial > response is not > "but what about the car?" it's "I'm a jerk?" And > every piece of > creativity inducing information I've ever seen says > it's essential for > the full flowing of most creativities to keep the > critical mind and > even criticism itself (by the self or others) as far > away from the > creating as possible. It kills creativity the way > explaining a joke > isn't funny. So you create a space like this where > people post fresh > work and post critique too and you have a very > unstable environment. > > Dan > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
