Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Armantrout’s brief stanzas are skeptical about almost every source of human confidence, trust, hope, joy, strength or belief. I don't think this is true. I think they're skeptical of the forces that variously act on these "human confidences".

Why is it that just because they don't offer the preferred consolation tents with pitiable decor of most poetry, they have to be read as somehow unfeeling? What I think they withhold is reassurance, which is not the same thing as distrusting humanity.

3 comments:

JimK said...

Your link didn't work somehow.
Hopefully this will:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E4D61231F93BA25750C0A9619C8B63

The quotes from Armantrout mostly
seem to raise legitimate modern
doubts about what we are told.

One quote advocates not being
pinned down. But isn't that
the point? Many static identities
seem to fail, and information and
media exposes the 'man behind the
curtain' at some point.

Some are moving on, to Deleuze
and Delanda, for ways to see
the dynamic patterns in the
chaos.

The review is a somewhat
static-classification identity
finding a somewhat dynamic-modal
identity to be doubting
everything. Doubting the static,
yes. If your POV is moving you
can see new order.

This is similar to looking at the
disturbing questions in
Existentialism and calling it
negative. Your answer can be
negative or positive.

The review is fair warning for
someone who hasn't stuck their
head in the issues yet. It would
look like post-mod. But if you
you take the poetry as challenge, it reads much differently.
It becomes a frontier, beyond
post-modernism.

The incitement to be untraceable
doesn't mean unknowable. Look at
that one piece. It tells you
who you are: are you excited by
that? Are you in fear of it?
This isn't easy stuff after all.

Strange...I can't fully get into
Armantrout, but the pieces quoted
I really get into.
Anyway....

JimK said...

Your link didn't work somehow.
Hopefully this will:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E4D61231F93BA25750C0A9619C8B63

The quotes from Armantrout mostly
seem to raise legitimate modern
doubts about what we are told.

One quote advocates not being
pinned down. But isn't that
the point? Many static identities
seem to fail, and information and
media exposes the 'man behind the
curtain' at some point.

Some are moving on, to Deleuze
and Delanda, for ways to see
the dynamic patterns in the
chaos.

The review is a somewhat
static-classification identity
finding a somewhat dynamic-modal
identity to be doubting
everything. Doubting the static,
yes. If your POV is moving you
can see new order.

This is similar to looking at the
disturbing questions in
Existentialism and calling it
negative. Your answer can be
negative or positive.

The review is fair warning for
someone who hasn't stuck their
head in the issues yet. It would
look like post-mod. But if you
you take the poetry as challenge, it reads much differently.
It becomes a frontier, beyond
post-modernism.

The incitement to be untraceable
doesn't mean unknowable. Look at
that one piece. It tells you
who you are: are you excited by
that? Are you in fear of it?

Strange...I can't fully get into
Armantrout, but the pieces quoted
I really get into.
Anyway....

JimK said...

arghh...please remove repeat
comment and this..
the blogger does this sometimes