[New-Poetry] Re: New-Poetry Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2
Matthew Shindell
matthew.shindell at gmail.com
Sun Feb 1 16:09:39 EST 2009
Nick,
Thanks for the comment. You're right about earlier periods of
conscription. Kelly made the same comment. I'll have to look again &
remind myself what was "first" about this draft.
This talk is in Philadelphia. I'm assuming they will all know where
Frankford PA is. But maybe I should add a sentence to clarify.
Thanks again for coming. Sorry you didn't get to stay for the pizza.
M
(sent from my iPhone)
Matthew Shindell
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of History
Science Studies Program
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California
On Feb 1, 2009, at 9:00 AM, new-poetry-request at wiz.cath.vt.edu wrote:
> Send New-Poetry mailing list submissions to
> new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> new-poetry-request at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> new-poetry-owner at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of New-Poetry digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List (Bob Grumman)
> 2. Re: Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List (Halvard Johnson)
> 3. Re: Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List (Judy Prince)
> 4. Re: Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List (Judy Prince)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:19:13 -0500
> From: Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net>
> Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List
> To: "NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News & Views"
> <new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu>
> Message-ID: <4985F5B1.6050802 at nut-n-but.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> James Cervantes wrote:
>> How little poetry we would have if each and every poem were sui
>> generis.
>>
>> - Jim
> You seem to be taking "sui generis" too literally, Jim. It doesn't
> mean
> in some way unlike every other poem, at least not to me; it means
> differing from all other poems in some fairly extreme way. My check
> list doesn't have that as a requirement, only that an excellent poem
> be
> special in some way. Dickinson's poems, for instance, each have a
> diction all its own, and like but not the same as the diction in her
> other poems, and unlike the diction in just about any other poet's
> poems, but not enough to make her poem sui generis, I don't think.
> Unless every good poet's oeuvre is sui generis.
>
> --Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:21:04 -0600
> From: Halvard Johnson <halvard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List
> To: "NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News &, Views"
> <new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <f160a1210902011121s48bbea88r9dc722939bb3ea5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I love chopped sui generis.
>
> Hal
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-
> but.net>wrote:
>
>> James Cervantes wrote:
>>
>>> How little poetry we would have if each and every poem were sui
>>> generis.
>>>
>>> - Jim
>>>
>> You seem to be taking "sui generis" too literally, Jim. It doesn't
>> mean in
>> some way unlike every other poem, at least not to me; it means
>> differing
>> from all other poems in some fairly extreme way. My check list
>> doesn't have
>> that as a requirement, only that an excellent poem be special in
>> some way.
>> Dickinson's poems, for instance, each have a diction all its own,
>> and like
>> but not the same as the diction in her other poems, and unlike the
>> diction
>> in just about any other poet's poems, but not enough to make her
>> poem sui
>> generis, I don't think. Unless every good poet's oeuvre is sui
>> generis.
>>
>>
>> --Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-Poetry mailing list
>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Halvard Johnson
> ================
> halvard at gmail.com
> http://home.earthlink.net/~halvard/index.html
> http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
> http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
> http://www.hamiltonstone.org
> http://home.earthlink.net/~halvard/vidalocabooks.html
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20090201/ee437505/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:25:13 -0500
> From: Judy Prince <jbalizsprince at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List
> To: "NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News &, Views"
> <new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <7db1d01b0902011125i3fb1f674pecf0ead217b5a6a0 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Bob, forgive your poor volunteer, Judy. I don't want to read this new
> version of WEPD. Having skimmed it at warp speed, I've determined
> that it's
> like the second draft of most of my poems; i.e., worse than the
> original
> because it's TOO thorough, TOO explainy, TOO boring----and most
> important,
> it's TOO lengthy. Did I mention boring?
> If I actually need to read, understand, and apply m'sel' to USING
> the new
> WEPD, then I resign my position as volunteer of our wonderful little
> WEPD
> experiment.
>
> Unless, of course, you send me a check [or cheque] for $50 a week
> throughout
> our experiment.
>
> carpe diem Judy
>
> 2009/2/1 Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net>
>
>> A poem is excellent if judged at any time ten years after its
>> publication
>> to be so by a
>> hundred or more poetry experts using the following check-list--if
>> no more
>> than ninety-nine
>> such experts can be found to disagree with that judgement within
>> ten years
>> of that
>> judgement, a poetry expert being defined as someone who has seriously
>> engaged the
>> works of ten or more poets (which means having read at least fifty
>> poems by
>> each)
>> including the works of at least one solitextual poet (poet whose
>> works are
>> solely textual)
>> and one pluraesthetic poet (poet whose works make significant use
>> of more
>> than one
>> expressive modality such as a visual poet) and has either composed
>> fifty
>> pages of poetry or
>> one hundred twenty pages of poetry criticism or who has been
>> accepted as a
>> poetry expert
>> by twenty or more poetry experts.
>>
>> An Excellent Poem:
>>
>> (1) expresses something importantly true or represents of something
>> centrally beautiful--
>> assuming it doesn't do both;
>>
>> (2) is at least somewhat complicated by Thematic Misdirection, or
>> something
>> that makes
>> its ultimate meaning or effect difficult quickly to ascertain, but
>> eventually achieves Clarity;
>>
>> (3) has a Unifying Principal, or some meaning or image or the like
>> which
>> pulls its elements
>> reasonably close together;
>> (4) contains few or no superfluous words;
>>
>> (5) boasts some constituent of substance that few or no other poems
>> have
>> such as
>> uncommon diction, grammar, expressive modality (e.g., mathematics,
>> visual
>> art), and imagery;
>>
>> (6) avoids excessive use of inappropriate Cliches of diction,
>> imagery or
>> thought; too overt
>> Sentimentality and hackneyed use of some technique or form;
>>
>> Comments: I added the panel of Poetry Experts after thinking over
>> Michael's
>> assertion
>> that "we know that Emily's little poem is excellent because a
>> significant
>> number of people
>> are still willing to give their time to reading it and thinking and
>> writing
>> about it." I agreed
>> at first with this, but then decided that popularity is no real
>> evidence of
>> quality. Look at
>> the religious sects still incredibly popular, for instance. And
>> there are
>> poems that have
>> stood :the test of time" that most genuine lovers of poetry don't
>> think
>> much of, like some
>> of Poe's. I think Poe is badly under-rated, myself, but I can't
>> believe
>> that all the poems still
>> in anthologies and greatly enjoyed by many people are excellent.
>> Note that I have proclaimed that any poem that is approved as
>> excellent by
>> my hundred or
>> more experts keeps its rating forever, however later generations
>> look on
>> it. My reasoning
>> is that it possible, even probable, that contemporaries will find a
>> poem to
>> be excellent for
>> something about it later generations are no longer sensitive to,
>> just as
>> the reverse so
>> frequently happens. But I do require ten years to pass for a poem to
>> become eligible for
>> evaluation to prevent fashion or prestige from being too quickly
>> influential.
>>
>> Note, too, that I have ordained that a mere hundred experts can
>> pronounce a
>> poem
>> excellent. That means that even if ten thousand pronounce it crap,
>> the
>> hundred win.
>>
>> My six desiderata seem objective enough to me--the way laws in a
>> democratic
>> society are.
>> In each case something objective is examined and judged by
>> professionals or
>> the
>> equivalent for excellence the same way deeds are examined and
>> judged by
>> professionals or
>> the equivalent for lawfulness. Some subjectivity is unavoidable,
>> but it is
>> minimized by
>> having specifics to judge, and expertise to counter-balance empty
>> enthusiasm or unfair
>> antagonism.
>> I added "central beauty" to number one to take care of poems that
>> have no
>> easy "truth" to
>> latch onto, haiku being a good example of that, and so many poems
>> since
>> 1900 that I feel
>> the evolution of poetry has been toward greater and greater
>> implicitness of
>> meaning since
>> its origin and especially recently. Side-comment: I believe poetry
>> as a
>> whole has been
>> improving, possibly on pace with science--because of its
>> broadening, not
>> necessarily
>> because of any qualitative improvement in individual poems; we have
>> more
>> words to work
>> with and more techniques--any more expressive modalities, so we
>> have an
>> ever-increasing
>> range of possible poems, which is a Good Thing.
>>
>> I think I could find something importantly true in every poem I
>> thought
>> excellent, but in
>> many cases--"lighght," for instance--it doesn't seem worth the
>> effort and
>> representation of
>> central beauty is usually much easier to demonstrate (I think few
>> could
>> disagree that light
>> is not a central beauty of existence however little they like the
>> poem
>> celebrating it).
>>
>> Number two is an addition because the constituent, suggested by Barry
>> Spacks, makes
>> sense to me. Number three is also an addition, because important
>> in my own
>> poetics, and
>> often--especially by otherstream poets--given short shrift. Number
>> four is
>> "Compactness"
>> which I improved, I think, to "Conciseness," and someone else to
>> "Economy
>> of
>> Expression" or the like before I finally settled on the words here
>> as doing
>> the best job of
>> pinning it down. Number 5 is the same as it was originally, I think.
>> Number six is new
>> because I realized in the discussion so far that we were ignoring
>> flaws
>> that should keep a
>> poem from being excellent.
>>
>> --Bob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-Poetry mailing list
>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20090201/67bde409/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:26:46 -0500
> From: Judy Prince <jbalizsprince at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List
> To: halvard at gmail.com, "NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News &,
> Views" <new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <7db1d01b0902011126y2d5de55bia6a3b508ef83cc6c at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> and I had thought it a hog call.
> Judy
>
> 2009/2/1 Halvard Johnson <halvard at gmail.com>
>
>> I love chopped sui generis.
>>
>> Hal
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-
>> but.net>wrote:
>>
>>> James Cervantes wrote:
>>>
>>>> How little poetry we would have if each and every poem were sui
>>>> generis.
>>>>
>>>> - Jim
>>>>
>>> You seem to be taking "sui generis" too literally, Jim. It
>>> doesn't mean
>>> in some way unlike every other poem, at least not to me; it means
>>> differing
>>> from all other poems in some fairly extreme way. My check list
>>> doesn't have
>>> that as a requirement, only that an excellent poem be special in
>>> some way.
>>> Dickinson's poems, for instance, each have a diction all its own,
>>> and like
>>> but not the same as the diction in her other poems, and unlike the
>>> diction
>>> in just about any other poet's poems, but not enough to make her
>>> poem sui
>>> generis, I don't think. Unless every good poet's oeuvre is sui
>>> generis.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> New-Poetry mailing list
>>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Halvard Johnson
>> ================
>> halvard at gmail.com
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~halvard/index.html
>> http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
>> http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
>> http://www.hamiltonstone.org
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~halvard/vidalocabooks.html
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-Poetry mailing list
>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20090201/931728ee/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>
>
> End of New-Poetry Digest, Vol 56, Issue 2
> *****************************************
More information about the New-Poetry
mailing list