pope fiction

He was proving a point that was obviously beyond you. You just don't get it, do you? I've already given up trying to get through to you, and I'm sure Valdemar has also. These are hints you couldn't possibly overlook.

PF

pope fiction

No, actually it doesn't require knowledge to read the bible. Knowledge is what you get by reading the bible. Also, are you saying that it doesn't suggest a way of life? No religion is involved? Bold assertion, unfortunately, you're going to have trouble proving that. Don't even bother, because I'm done arguing with you. Nobody else here has the patience to engage you either, since you're so thick-headed and, well, [believe me, I really wanted to say this insult, but I refrained again]. Goodbye, and good luck, because you'll need it.

PF

spin

Pope Fiction: He [Valdemar] was proving a point that was obviously beyond you.

No, he was trying to be reductive and didn't give the Hopkins poem any respect. This is endemic of the problem I was attempting to highlight.


spin

pope fiction

Edited to remove insult. He didn't mean any disrespect, he was proving a point that content is a big element of art. Do you even see it? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. His point wasn't to vandalize your pretty little poem, ok? Edited to remove further insults. Geezussss, get a clue!

PF

spin

pope fiction: He didn't mean any disrespect, he was proving a point that content is a big element of art.

You repeat your assertion without adding to its content. There was no "proving". He had overlooked my previous example of the Rape of the Lock as to relevance of content for judging the literary content of a text. A text is written for a purpose and that purpose was deliberately perverted in Valdemar's lame attempt to justify himself. I have never claimed that content is non-existent in a literary work, but that the art is not judged on the content. This does not change the relationship between form and content. It does however mean that form can be judged separately form content.


spin

pope fiction

Do I need to add further arguments to Valdemar's? I think he said it pretty well. What he "overlooked" previously has nothing to do with me. The "perverted" nature of his example is irrelevant; he was demonstrating how content counts more than you say by changing one word into another, thus, well, ruining the poem. Yes, you're right content exists, but you're wrong saying that art isn't judged by it. And yes, form and content are separately judged, but both are taken into account.

PF

spin

The reason the Hopkins poem was used in the first place was to show that one can happily make the separation between artistic form and writer's content. This is why Valdemar refused to deal with the poem. It's poetic merit could easily be dealt with while having little appreciation of the religious content. The best he could do is his little display of perverseness. While it's fine to say that a piece of art cannot exist without the content on which it is built, that piece of art need not be dependent on that content for its artistic merit. Art has always been about not what is communicated but how it is communicated. The critic should therefore be able to talk about artistic merit while wildly disagreeing with its content and give a negative criticism while agreeing with its content.

You (generic you) cannot judge meaningfully on the merits of a work merely based on your disagreement with its content. You can decide you don't like it because of its content, but when you conclude something is artistically bad because of its content you are talking through your hat.


spin

Celsus

What do you think the price of hats will be next week?

Joel

Valdemar

I left this ridiculous thread several days ago, but I couldn't help popping in to see what was happening.

I didn't refuse to deal with the poem. I dealt with it from the point where I initially jumped into this thread. And you, spin, refuse to deal with the fact that content and artistic form are linked. How do I know this? Look at what you say here:

So, changing the CONTENT of your poem to include the word "crap" is perverse? Now who isn't separating content from art? You really crack me up, spin. Do you even read what you post?

Pope Fiction is saying exactly what my intent was and spin continues to attack me and not the issues. I like how you say that it is "the best I could do" as if you know me somehow. You also say "that is why Valdemar refused to deal with the poem." You are assuming you know my intent -- which is really asinine -- and then you say I refused to deal with the poem. And everyone reading these posts knows that I did deal with the poem.

And by the way, spin, since you're such a stickler for grammar and punctuation in your attack on Pope Fiction:
You might stop being a hypocrite and get a better edjication. You said "it's," when you should have said "its." Oh, quick, spin! Scour the thread to find where you made the mistake!

Mary.

And it's deathly dull in most places. Some of the stories are interesting, if for no other reason than they aren't taught at all - like the woman who nails the man's head to the ground. But most of the books in the Bible are deathly dull, repetitive begetting, slaughtering and 'how dare you not worship me!'

Who would have thought books with so much sex, bloodshed and jealousy could be so boring?!?

Mary.