03-28-2015, 01:18 AM
i would just like to say that nowhere in Dale's original post was the idea that ALL writing IS communication (he added that later). And once again, I am at pains to say that there is no one rule. There is no 'purpose' of the purpose of writing something, to cut off that live thing inside ourselves that will repeat until it is dead. But, if one wants to communicate a message, then that message better become clear at some point. If one wants to do something else, then so be it. I would prefer the message or meaning not be clear.
I would say that most poetry, most good poetry, is less concerned with meanings or messages, that is all about a system of signs (like this!). If your system of signs (a poem) can be equated to another system of signs (an exposition) then what good is it? Brevity? The fact is 'good' poetry has an incoherent quality, unclear, and uncommunicative. Thank fuck.
“We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have too much of it.
We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present.” - Deleuze and/or Guattari
I would say that most poetry, most good poetry, is less concerned with meanings or messages, that is all about a system of signs (like this!). If your system of signs (a poem) can be equated to another system of signs (an exposition) then what good is it? Brevity? The fact is 'good' poetry has an incoherent quality, unclear, and uncommunicative. Thank fuck.
“We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have too much of it.
We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present.” - Deleuze and/or Guattari