Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 09:23:23 -0400
From: Barron <gebarron-AT-InfoAve.Net>
Subject: Re: PLC: Poetry, prose, fiction as meaningful


On 8/20/00 12:22 AM zatavu-AT-excite.com wrote:

> As for me, most of my
> works, poetry and prose (I write far more prose than poetry - it being the
> language of the real world (even those stories that use magical realism),
> poetry being the language of idealism ) could be read as a "suggestion on
> how to live," though it was certainly not foremost in my mind when I wrote
> the pieces (I learned several years ago that when you write with a moral in
> mind, you write garbage; but when you write a piece with aesthetics,
> character, and story in mind, you end up with a good story that
> coincidentally gives a moral since most things you write (when not
> surrealism or dadaism, though not always the case here either) reflects your
> world view, and, as such, gives a moral).

That is one heck of a sentence. I think your suggestion that prose is the
language of the real world, set in oposition to the language of idealism, is
a bit narrow minded and absolute. Can't prose be as idealistic as poetry?
Can't poetry be 'of' the real world as prose? How did you arrive at these
distinctions?

I also think your edict on writing with a moral in mind verges on being
silly, at best immature. I, as you might guess, would cite virtually all of
Flannery O'Conner's work. Would you disagree? Or is she just a notable
exception? What specific literature, that you know was written with a moral
in mind, would you call garbage? Are these questions unfair?
-- 
Barron



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---