Look here, here, and here.
Can it be true both that students are "readers unused to any poetic writing at all, for whom any such writing would be equally opaque" and that Shelley is "soothing and familiar"?
Can it be true both that, to read Andrews, you need "[c]ontext that a critic might provide, that being the critic's job." and that reading Andews is "not difficult in the least once you shed a few prejudices"? If so, is that all critics do? Would getting high work just as well?
And if Jonathan can teach a chimpanzee to read Andrews, why not teach me? I've got 95% chimpanzee DNA. Come on, Jonathan, tell me something I don't know about about that "poem." Tell me what it says beyond what Duchamp said when he signed that urinal — and he said a lot that day, including "This game's done. Put a fork in it." Oh, and tell your students about your contempt for their abilities.
The real problem with poets like Silliman and Andrews is that their chosen forms so curtail the complexity of what they can say that, after a few minutes, everybody who's willing to wade through the surface crap gets it. And the joke's over. It's boring. After about 10 pages it's stupefying. Even if "crawlspatiality" is a wonderful word.
Posted from webmail, so there's no title.
1:23:31 PM
|