Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| omnipoetics:quasha [2025/04/02 19:09] – [Part I: Frame] blaine | omnipoetics:quasha [2025/04/03 00:06] (current) – [Part III: A Further Part] blaine | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ===== Part II: Object at a Distance ===== | ===== Part II: Object at a Distance ===== | ||
| - | ? | + | This section of the reading begins by rejecting the dichotomy of oral vs. written work, stating that this is a false, socially constructed one that figures such as Blake and Heidegger dismantled. He (Quasha) states we are now at a period of time again where we can choose to change from this dichotomy, and he proposes we spend more time in the middle of these two ideas, observing the intersection between written and oral work. He argues that language is currently in the process of aligning and we can tell because we are in this moment of change: " The issue, I gather from the evidence of a new or, rather, emergent language), is not the choice of oral or written modalities, but the problematic of alignment within language itself. And this problematic is rendered visible and audible in the event of poetic transformation in our time." (p. 462) |
| + | |||
| + | The history of Western poetry, according to Quasha, only begins this development of Oral vs. Written work very recently. He uses historical evidence, recent academic work, recent publications and transcriptions, | ||
| + | |||
| + | The issue with traditional criticism is that it does not deal with a fundamental aspect of poetry, the act of creating itself and being language in motion. Traditional criticism only focuses on the concepts and ideas that a poetry introduces in a line-by-line analysis of the literal or perceived metaphorical words and meanings of said words. It does not deal with the emotion or the performance aspect or the gift of creation itself which poetry has. To deal with this, Quasha and the poet Charles Stein came up with a new method of criticism, DiaLogos (Dialogical Criticism) (p. 463). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Citing Olsen, Heidegger, and Barfield, Quasha calls for a return to this middle ground, truly the rejection of this false dichotomy rather than the // | ||
| ===== Part III: A Further Part ===== | ===== Part III: A Further Part ===== | ||
| - | ? | + | In this part of Quasha' |
| + | |||
| + | He discusses the implications of " | ||
| + | * self-awareness (auto-exegesis/ | ||
| + | * uncertainty as practice (Negative Capability) | ||
| + | * altered states of discourse (Parapoetics) | ||
| + | * the difficulty of the text (uninterpretable complexity) | ||
| + | * processual and open alignment (“ resonance’’/ | ||
| + | * reoralization/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Moreover, he wants to stay in the betweenness with poetics (oral and written) and dialogical discourse, without settling on a side - thus he brings up " | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | What we are experiencing, | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === From ' | ||
| + | **Jerome Rothenberg & George Quasha** | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | In the story of American poetry she turns up often. She is earth or god, wisdom or muse--or that woman always one town ahead of our pursuit, say, or like the poor-old-soul of Bukka White' | ||
| + | I ain't got nobody / to take me to this train / Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm / Mmmmmmmmmm mm mmmm... </ | ||
| + | {{tag> | ||