> > Marcus Bales wrote: >> > Yeah, yeah -- you always claim to be misunderstood.

What I actually claim and most of the time believe is that you try to interpret what I say in the worst possible light. Here I speak of what's significant in a novel without bothering to list what those things are and you assume I can only mean the story--or whatever those things might be for unliterary people. You don't stop to consider that I haven't said. If you weren't out to make me look bad, you'd ask me what I considered of significance in a novel. If you had any sense, you wouldn't ask because my posts would tell you that it was a lot more than narrative and whatever else you think a philistine might get out of a novel.

> On 14 Jul 2005 at 14:19, Bob Grumman wrote: >> So, Marcus, do you REALLY think that I would consider the narrative >> content >> of a novel the only thing in it that could be of significance? > > I think it's entirely possible.

This truly baffles me, Marcus. I just can't see how you could think that. Except that you want to think it and are capable of ignoring reality. The reality, in this case, is that in my posts I discuss all kinds of things I get out of poems (and by extension presumably should get out of a novel)besides narrative, and I do so at length. I talk about the value of colors in visual poetry, for instance. I talk about tone. I show admiration for poems that you like because of how well they describe something in nature. I admire in a post the psychological insights of certain poets--for instance, Wilbur in his poem on Plath, which I like a lot. I don't believe there's any normal way of appreciating literature that I haven't indicated I know about and presuably am capable of, at some level. I criticize various poems, too, for NOT having interesting language, say--which should indicate that I prize effective diction--or for lacking other things that one would have to think I want in poems, and can appreciate. I indicate some familiarity with most of the canonical poets which would be inconsistent with the level of philistinism you want to attach to me. I've written a 200-page book on poetry that, whatever its value, surely indicates that I must be aware of other things besides narrative. And you know about my book, or should, since I post on it every once in a while. You also know I get criticism published in Small Press Review and American Book Review. How if I don't connect at all with literature? Finally, you seem to be accusing me of having an IQ of about 25, because if I had any brains at all, how could I be wasting as much time and energy on a pursuit I'm as unfit for as you say I am? Surely you don't think I believe I'm being greatly rewarded for my efforts. By society, that is. I'm rewarded by the pleasure I get in doing what I'm doing, and sometimes by compliments from people I respect, but I don't get money or recognition. Yet I've been plugging on in literature for nearly 50 years now, having started as a teen-ager--with detours into the military and the jobs I've had to take to support myself. Why? Why haven't I just worked as a shipping clerk all my life (that being one of my first jobs)? I'd have made more money and been retired now.

>You seem to approach literature from an > engineer's point of view in the first place -- not a scientist's, but an > engineer's. I think I've finally put my finger, here, on what bothers me > about your approach, in fact: that it's an engineer's and not a > scientist's, > not an artist's.

Of course, whether what I do is valid or not has nothing to do with how I approach it. But I'm interested in why I--and other poeple--do what they do, so am not bothered by your bringing it up. (And I LOVE analyzing myself.)

This scientist/engineer/artist thing does interest me. I've always felt that I was cursed/blessed with both a scientist's and an artist's mind--and I think more having both than in having one that was in the middle between the two. It's great because it gives me greater range of thought than most people, but it's bad because it makes me sloppy as a scientist and too precise as an artist--to put it very roughly (and using the terms "artist" and "scientist" loosely).

Anyway, I am a complete scientific materialist. By that I mean that I believe in cause and effect, logic, and that what we can perceive is all there is to reality (except for consciousness, which is outside scientific investigation). I believe in nothing more (that I can think of right now). Because I'm interested in just about the whole of existence, I apply my scientific materialism to all aspects of existence to try to understand them, period. To do that, I believe I must first pare reality down to the essentials, and name and define those essentials. Then put them into a taxonomy that shows how they relate to one another. And that's what I try my best to do, period.

Why you think maximizing my understanding cannot be my main motive by far as a truth-seeker makes me think that you don't understand that as a motive. Or that you need to consider me either self-deluded beyond belief or an outright liar. Not that I only care about furthering my understanding. Certainly, I'd love to become famous for some discovery, and/or given a lot of money--and/or triumph over a world view I don't like (such as collectivism). But those are secondary.

Art is just one part of existence that I'm trying to understand (as a truth-seeker). I go about it as indicated above: reduce it to its smallest significant material parts, because everything has such smallest significant material parts, name them and define them. Then build a taxonomy that systematically reveals how they relate to one another.

I do the same with the human brain to determine how we process art--what it does for us, what makes it effective, etc. I won't go into that here, though.

As an artist, I work similarly except that my intuition-to-analyticality ratio is a lot higher, and I'm pursuing beauty. I try to make objects that give pleasure. To do this, I use anything I can. In poetry, it's some combination of interesting diction, strong images, archetypal depth, pretty sounds, pretty colors, intriguing shapes, effective architecture, etc. I try for something that will give ME pleasure, then try to make sure the pleasure I get from it isn't due to anything only I can relate to such as my brother's middle name--that is, I try for universality of some sort. Freshness comes in simply because I see no point in doing what has been done before. I can't believe any poet does. I claim that the function of art is to provide fresh windows on the familiar. It can't do that if it contains nothing new (however small).

> Come to think of it, it's not even an engineer's point of view. It's a > consumerist engineer's view. It's like those ideas you see that people > have and hoard in hope of making millions of dollars selling things: hats > with fans in the brim powered by the sun, for example. There are people > who think it's very clever, but the number of people who will actually buy > one, and among those who buy one, those who will wear, or who will be > allowed to wear (after an encounter with a friend or family member) it in > public is tiny. There's always someone willing to design it, and someone > else willing to make it, but there's no demand for it even among the > specialized audience that sees the cleverness of the solution.

Right, Marcus: I've spent a lifetime concerned only with selling something for which there is OBVIOUSLY no market.

> That's why your notion of "taxonomy" is so off. You're not looking at it > as > a scientific thing at all, but as a practical, pragmatic thing. You want > to > know how many kinds of poetry there are, label them, put them in > categories,

Nothing wrong with this, so far, right?

> think about it, choose the kind you like, and you think that > everyone else should do the same because that's the reasonable thing > to do if one is shopping for poetry. You use the same approach in your > writing: you say "What hasn't been done yet? What would be 'new'?" > Then you whack away at using words in a way no one has done before, > and argue that because no one's done it before it must be not only > good, but better than anything else -- better because it's new.

As I've told you before, this is untrue. I say that the new ALWAYS has some value due to what it's doing that's new, never that a poem can be superior simply by doing something new. I have also said that a poem, to be worthwhile, must do SOMEthing that no other poem has done, but that it need not involve one of the new techniques I admire, and can be in an old form.

> But poetry, all art, is a different kind of endeavor from the engineer's > or > the marketer's endeavor, however. The idea behind art is essentially > foreign to the engineer or the marketer, as it seems, I think, on > reflection, essentially foreign to you. You've sort of embraced it pro > forma,

My, that's quite an admission.

>but you don't really get it. You see it is an interesting field of > contretemps, alive with sallies in and out of various fortresses across > the battlefield, and I think you really like the sound and fury.

I think you're talking about poetics, not poetry. I don't battle the Philistines when I compose poetry, I just compose poetry--whether you want to believe it or not.

> But really, Bob, to believe that the essence of the thing is to get the > label right is simply overwhelming evidence of the notgettingititudinosity > with which you approach art in general and poetry in particular. Several > other people regularly point out the tendentious nature of your labels -- > how labels for things you like are always cleverly approving, and for > things you don't disparaging, and not always cleverly.

I have always said it is very hard to make neutral labels. No one who criticizes my labels for being disparaging ever suggests better ones. (You did recently try to, but failed, in my view.) I do the best I can.

> There's no evidence in what you're doing or how you're doing it in art > that you're sincerely scientific: trying to observe accurately and > describe > accurately what's there, to build a testable hypothesis that predicts > accurately, or to test hypotheses rigorously and fairly.

As I've told you before, a taxonomy is a prelude to doing science, not science--though scientific (by my definition above).

> Instead, you're > tendentious and aggressive; you engage not in persuasion but in name- > calling when you find others don't agree with you; you take as personal > things that are clearly aimed not at you but at your opinions; and you > insist that you ARE your opinons, which is itself all the evidence anyone > needs that they're dealing with, at best, an eccentric.

What I insist, Marcus, is that if you call all my opinions over the thirty years or so that I've been working on my taxonomy moronic, you are necessarily calling me a moron. How can I have held such opinions for so long, in the face of overwhelmingly valid criticism such as yours, and not be a moron? You believe personal attacks must be direct or they are not personal. That seems to me so you can feel morally superior. I believe in saying what I think--because I believe in honesty. So I occasionally indulge in name-calling--but NEVER in lieu of an argument.

> In short both what you say and how you say it combine to make it look > like you're more interested in grinding your axe than in examining the > facts.

> > Marcus

That I grind my axe at times does not mean that's all I'm concerned with. And how can I not grind my axe against people grinding theirs, the way you do--not merely in favor of formal poetry but in the belief that it is the ONLY kind of poetry?