Yesterday I finished West of Paradise by George Venn. Something Axelrod told me way back in the day I think really applies to Venn's verse: "Your best poems is when you bring someone else into the poem." George focuses most of his poetry on capturing moments in nature, stories in nature. It's poetry with what Robert Wrigley calls the "narrative impulse". However, George's best poems are when he tries to capture the essence of someone, normally someone he knows/knew, or tell the story of their life. These were the poems I felt the hurt, these were the emotions I shouted with joy, these wre the poems I felt myself drop into the page of place and soul and take the hand of the characters in-verse.
His other poetry is eh. He's garrulous, untrimmed, and at times pedantic. His poems have a tendency to stop right when they open up! Oftentimes he ends with a question, the very moment when the poem could encompass more of the world! And he tries too hard to say things in a poetic way, which, I know, is a critique which easily can be applied to me. I found myself cutting words, especially articles and unnecessary transition words, from his poetry. Does this mean I'm getting better at recognizing better poetry and that of less quality?
Maybe. Overall, 3 of 5 stars for his poetry.
But then again, I'm just focusing on his poetry! Many of his essays an short stories are much better! Especially the latter. His stories are speckled with the memories and narrative musings of a young, frustrated male, a man who's place he's rejected, who's place has rejected him, and he must find some sort of purpose or meaning either in staying or leaving. His stories are fun, colloquial, and enjoyable to read, even if they do end on a bit of a quizzical note with less than satisfactory character growth or regression. His essays were also a pleasure as they engaged with Northwest authors especially, authors I'm familiar with and versed in from my reading for Ars Poetica and school at EOU in general.
Overall, 4 of 5 stars for his prose.
I also watched the directitorial commentary on The Last Temptation of Christ last night. Some interesting facts and quotes.
His other poetry is eh. He's garrulous, untrimmed, and at times pedantic. His poems have a tendency to stop right when they open up! Oftentimes he ends with a question, the very moment when the poem could encompass more of the world! And he tries too hard to say things in a poetic way, which, I know, is a critique which easily can be applied to me. I found myself cutting words, especially articles and unnecessary transition words, from his poetry. Does this mean I'm getting better at recognizing better poetry and that of less quality?
Maybe. Overall, 3 of 5 stars for his poetry.
But then again, I'm just focusing on his poetry! Many of his essays an short stories are much better! Especially the latter. His stories are speckled with the memories and narrative musings of a young, frustrated male, a man who's place he's rejected, who's place has rejected him, and he must find some sort of purpose or meaning either in staying or leaving. His stories are fun, colloquial, and enjoyable to read, even if they do end on a bit of a quizzical note with less than satisfactory character growth or regression. His essays were also a pleasure as they engaged with Northwest authors especially, authors I'm familiar with and versed in from my reading for Ars Poetica and school at EOU in general.
Overall, 4 of 5 stars for his prose.
I also watched the directitorial commentary on The Last Temptation of Christ last night. Some interesting facts and quotes.
- Scorsese is a self-proclaimed "Catholic who takes his faith very seriously."
- In 1983 when Scorsese first proposed the film to the studio heads, they asked him why he wanted to make this film. He replied, "I want to try to get to know Jesus better."
- Scorsese wanted to capture Jesus as "one of us" with "the same fears, concerns" which would "make him more accessible to an audience," an audience with "open minds" that is.
- According to Schrader, this portrait of Jesus was "a healthy counterbalance to most of Christianity which tends to push aside more of the uncomfortable human elements and tends to focus on the more glorious and miracle-working and redemptive spiritual elements." Dafoe added later that "we tend to make [Jesus] all divine, which makes him all unrelatable."
- Jay Cox theorized about the backlash to the film: "That's what scandalized people so deeply about the movie: the fact that Jesus who could have or do anything want the world that everyone takes for granted, simple humanity, love, family, the mot blessed things there are."
- Schrader, a lapsed dutch Calvinist, said "argument an heated debated was part and parcel" in his upbringing in the intellectualized Calvinist strain of Christianity. However, he added that "visual argument is very different than verbal argument," and that the backlash was largely because of the power of the first.
- Sex is "part of being a human being," said Scorsese, and, he continued, if Jesus is going to be tempted with every temptation then sexuality had to be part of that.
- Jay Cox said they had "no notion of the vehemence of the misunderstanding" when the began making the film.
- According to Cox, Scorsese was at times in "physical danger" after the release of the film.
Overall, when I watched the commentary, I got the picture (heh) of a devout Catholic, one utterly concerned with growing in and respecting his faith, trying to capture the essence of a struggle a very human, very divine Jesus would have undertaken. It's a picture, contrary to what its detractors may say, with no polemical purposes, no (purposed) anti-Christian rhetoric or iconography, and a deeply felt conviction to make Jesus accessible in the time-eternal struggle between the world and one's Spirit, a struggle which any serious believer has grappled in at some point in his life. Personally, it's a Jesus I can understand, divorced from the haloed, self-righteous, perfect-from-the-womb conception we're spoon fed by the gospel writers and the church/Church as a whole, and that's why I connected with it so much. It's a Jesus with very real human struggles, at least for those who really engage the true world-negating facets of their faiths in some facet larger and more intensive than swearing off soda for a month and disabling their Facebook to have a few minutes extra to read their Bible at night.
Okay, I'm done ranting.
What else could I write about?
Nothing. I'm going to research Noah. See you tomorrow!
Okay, I'm done ranting.
What else could I write about?
Nothing. I'm going to research Noah. See you tomorrow!