Skip to main content

Mr. Aristotle's Triangle

We question the gatekeepers and if what they are guarding is worth the entry fee. Can we get rid of the gatekeepers?

I'm suspicious of gatekeepers because I am often denied entry.

So often I hear it's harder to make sense, speak clearly than speak/write cryptic. It's the old text/reader/writer (Mr. Aristotle's rhetorical triangle). Get rid of the writer and what does the shape become. A vertical line. Text to reader?

Intention is not always bad. It's too easily dismissed. The point is to keep things fluid to begin and begin and begin and begin with/in/between mystery and clarity.

There's a there there indeed. But the there shifts constantly and the reader must shift with it (as well as the writer). The there is not a location but consists of peddling wheres, many wheres. If anyone attempts to explain why one where is better than another where it is suspect (and must always continue shifting with the location that never exists except in it's shifting).

Is shifting enough? I tend to feel like shifting and velocity are important but as an end in themselves? Action pack it, sure. Jackson Pollack it, sure.

Then again the where has shifted since Jackson. That's the point. It's not enough to enact the difficulty of language to mean. In not meaning it must also mean.

Don't ask me how that happens.

I'm looking for mystery but not just any old mystery.

I tend to think audience is important. Sure, not to point of pandering. Or assuming to much. Or dismissing the possibility of creating an audience rather than fitting an audience that already exists (although I suppose the audience always already exists).

So, Mr. Aristotle won't go away. Does his wee triangle apply to poetry as well as newspaper articles? Sure the texts are different, but the relationship between text, reader, writer are still important to consider, right?

Information overload. I don't need one person, one canon.

Fourty critics need not agree, should not agree. Or if they agree they should not agree for the same reason(s). Difference in reviewing, not back slapping in the name of tenure, jolly good form, monkey back scratching.

How tired we all get.

Novelty never beats security.
Big slice to security, a sliver for novelty.

Alright, too much Nietzsche and Wittgenstein before coffee make me feel like making grand pronouncements. Who am I? I'm just a man typing on his keyboard trying to
BREAK out.


Anonymous said…
Umm, where in Aristotle do you find that? Probably you are referring to the entechnic proofs in Rhetoric 1.2 and following, though even the notion of that as a triangle of persuasive modes is a subsequent invention. The primary text will serve you better than 20c reimaginings.

Popular posts from this blog

poets reading poets

There are on A now: Andrews, Antin, Apollinaire, Ashbery

A project from the Atlanta Poetry Group. Check it:

The Poetry of Tao Lin

Another Ireland by Robert Archambeau

This review really hit it for me. I recently read Maurice Scully's _Livelihood_ and Geofrey Squires _Untitled and Other Poems_ is on deck (I love that baseball term. It is baseball, right?)

I think this is from The Nortre Dame review, but I found it via goofle (I mean google).

Another Ireland: Part Two
Maurice Scully, The Basic Colours. Durham, UK: Pig Press, 1994.
Geoffrey Squires, Landscapes and Silences. Dublin: New Writers' Press, 1996.
Catherine Walsh, Idir Eatortha and Making Tents. London: Invisible Books, 1996.

By Robert Archambeau

I began the first half of this article (Notre Dame Review #4) by mentioning some of the limits to the legendary hospitality Ireland has shown to its poets. If you arrive in Ireland from any point of departure outside of Eastern Europe, you will indeed find a public far more willing than the one you left behind to grant poets the recognition all but the most ascetic secretly crave. However, this hospitality has never extended to Irish poets w…