Re: Kafka and rilke and Perplexity State University

i thought i would paste in my original reply to jim's
post, which got this thread going:

--- James Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu> wrote:
>
> there were plenty of bad poets, even back then. I
> guess the difference
> now is exposure -- the best stuff from the past is
> always easily
> accessible, while the crap from the 16/17th
> centuries is really only
> read by scholars. Contemporary poetry, though, is
> out there for
> everyone, and probably more so than it ever has been
> in the past.

the sheer amount of contemporary poetry is
overwhelming. (i'm not sure if i should put poetry in
quote marks, or not.)

personally, i feel we (the readers) would be a whole
lot better off if there were to be a stricture on
publishing poetry. no poems allowed in print until
they have survived at least a year in an airless desk
drawer.

but you're free to read them to any unwitting soul.

kim

now live: nowhere have i suggested that writers
should be censored. at most, i float the idea--yes, i
use the word stricture--that readers would benefit
(and even writers too, to avoid possible future
embarrassment)--that poems shouldn't be allowed in
print until a year after their composition. i didn't
say they shouldn't be published ever.

kim

--- tina carson <tina_carson@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ouch, Kim
> No, I practice great self-censorship. I only object
> to it being imposed by
> snobbish or testy people who think that they are the
> ultimate rule of what
> should be read. Fahrenheit 451 can't be far behind.
> tina
>
>
> >--- Kim Johnson <haikux2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >the writer's part
> > > to
> > > think *everything* which issues forth from her
> pen
> > > should be read by other people?
> >
> >
> >let me be clear that "her" does NOT refer to tina.
> >
> >i mean the generic "writer", the inclusive
> "her/his".
> >
> >thanks,
> >kim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- James Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu> wrote:
> > > > There's a world of difference between asking
> for
> > > > voluntary
> > > > self-censorship (which can always be ignored
> by
> > > the
> > > > writer -- it's only
> > > > followed at will) and imposing an external
> > > > censorship (which is imposed
> > > > by force against the will of the writer). Kim
> is
> > > > doing the latter and
> > > > not the former.
> > > >
> > > > I've heard of one poet that "He'd be a great
> poet
> > > if
> > > > he didn't publish
> > > > everything he'd written." A little
> > > self-censorship
> > > > is a good thing, I
> > > > think. I don't think there's any escaping the
> > > > feeling of mortification
> > > > most writers have when reading their old
> works,
> > > but
> > > > perhaps the reasons
> > > > for this feeling of mortification won't be
> quite
> > > > as...mortifying...if we
> > > > follow Kim's advice.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > Kim Johnson wrote:
> > > > > --- tina carson <tina_carson@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Oh, Kim, I really must take issue with this
> one.
> > > > >>Ever heard of Walt Witman?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > was he the guy who had that hot three-way
> with
> > > > emilie
> > > > > dickinsen and ralph david emersen?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>Sorry, Kim, I still think
> > > > >>you're being an advocate for sensorship, and
> > > > perhaps
> > > > >>a bit snobbish.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > i'm an advocate for as much sensory
> experience
> > > as
> > > > > possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > it's safe to delete "perhaps" and "a bit".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>I
> > > > >>don't know about other authors, but even
> though
> > > I
> > > > >>would not duplicate it
> > > > >>today, I certainly don't regret even the
> most
> > > > naive
> > > > >>of my works.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > lucky you. (and, honestly, this is not said
> > > > snidely.)
> > > > >
> > > > > kim
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>>is what i'm suggesting below censorship?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>i'm still allowing the smitten creator to
> > > > >>
> > > > >>buttonhole
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>any poor fool to hear her latest creation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>i think the permanency of print should
> perhaps
> > > be
> > > > >>>withheld until the muse's visitation is
> over,
> > > and
> > > > >>>there can be a more judicious assessment of
> > > what
> > > > >>>transpired.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>surely any number of writers would, if they
> > > only
> > > > >>>could, wish back their headlong rush into
> > > print.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>even our dear doctor on our very own list,
> it
> > > > seems
> > > > >>
> > > > >>to
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>me, if i read him correctly, regrets
> allowing
> > > his
> > > > >>>first two books into print. and these
> weren't
> > > > >>
> > > > >>books
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>of mere juvenilia.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>kim
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>--- tina carson <tina_carson@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>Sensorship is the death of creativity, Kim
> > > > >>>>tina
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>the sheer amount of contemporary poetry
> is
> > > > >>>>>overwhelming. (i'm not sure if i should
> put
> > > > >>
> > > > >>poetry
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>in
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>quote marks, or not.)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>personally, i feel we (the readers) would
> be
> > > a
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>whole
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>lot better off if there were to be a
> > > stricture
> > > > >>
> > > > >>on
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>publishing poetry. no poems allowed in
> print
> > > > >>
> > > > >>until
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>>they have survived at least a year in an
> > > > >>
> > > > >>airless
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>desk
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>drawer.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>but you're free to read them to any
> unwitting
> > > > >>
> > > > >>soul.
> > > > >>
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Jul 3 13:44:47 2003