[New-Poetry] Berragain

[Bob Grumman]

> On 12/21/06, Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>> Sometimes it's possible for a perceptive person
>> to know more about a book he hasn't read than an unperceptive person who 
>> has
>> read it does.  Believe it or not.
>
> And sometimes people assume, based on their pre-conceptions, things
> about something they've never seen/read/heard and then, surprise,
> fulfill that prophecy when they do actually come across the work
> because they made up their minds well beforehand and were never in
> danger of being surprised.
>
> Not YOU, of course, but some people, sometimes...  the point is:
> without actually experiencing the art, one can never *really* know the
> difference. Some are more comfortable with that than others.
>
> c

It's a complicated subject.  I think one *can* really know (*sufficiently*) 
what's in some books without reading them--based on what others have said 
about them.  Certainly, a partial readng of many books is more than enough 
to let a perceptive reader know sufficiently what's in them.  And one, as I 
suggested, can read a book ten times and still not know what's in it.  Each 
of us has to decide how much time to allot to exploring books, and do the 
best he can with the inevitably partial experience of many of them he has. 
Bottome line, for me, if someone thinks something I say about a book is 
wrong, he needs to say why; whether I've read all, part or none of the book 
is irrelevant--as is whether what I say about a book I've read is based on 
my inability to transcend my preconceptions.  I think my criticism over the 
years indicates that I do almost always enter a work I coment on with 
preconceptions, but that I often change my mind about it.

--Bob G.

As for preconceptions, it's easy to claim someone