Print

Print



On 6/3/2016 6:16 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> No one has ever succeeded in defining Poetry,  
      I love a grand unprovable generalization as much as the next 
person, though if we were going to argue, you'd have to start with a 
definition of "success." But you needn't bother on my account. I'd only 
point out that the author of the paper which elicited my query seems to 
think there IS a difference, and upon which she can presumably explain 
one (over here) in terms of the other (over there). I would just like to 
see it, and judging by her vita, which to be sure is quite impressive, 
there's a good chance "vagueness" is going to work into it somewhere 
(everywhere?).

  On the oddest of U.S. election seasons I've witnessed and despite my 
general rule not to talk politics on the listserv, this season is so 
downright and outright big-time weird and the emerging candidates so 
unattractive and the stakes so high, I've entertained the same thought 
you have. (Don't worry, probably for different reasons.) I imagine many 
of us have had the thought that, speaking of novelizations, this real 
life adventure is a satirical parody of itself that needs no third party 
author. Just clip the daily newspaper articles, paste them in a large 
scrapbook, and watch the story grow.

Just sayin'...
Ken A

> let alone given any meaning to  what is "ineluctably poetry." The poetry/prose distinction is a social   construct, not some Platonic essence. If we agree to name a text a poem, it is a poem. And if you read serious histories of "the novel," you find that there is very little agreement as to when "the novel" was invented. I would say that As I Lay Dying is as " ineluctably" poetic as TWL.
>
> But there are more fun things to argue about. Is Clinton or Trump the most serious threat to the world? It's a close call, but I suspect Clinton would be the more effective evil.
>