thinking alike

I read Ron Silliman's Blog frequently. It helps that he posts new stuff nearly every day. Unlike me. If you read this blog frequently it would mean committing the stuff to memory. Once or twice a week me. Tho' there are odd days like today (a day off from work) when I post 2 or more times).

Considering that just yesterday I posted notes similar to these on Silliman's Blog (exerpts):

"[Concerning poetry contests judged 'blind':] ... there is no method known to human beings to remove the social from a social practice, but this is what would be required to fully expunge personal preference from the process of identifying “the best” manuscript. For the most part, blind screening such as is done, for example, by that National Endowment for the Arts, simply inserts a filter of incompetence as a randomizing factor. But ultimately the judges, real human beings, will sort what makes it through this literary spawning challenge to select those texts to which they most respond. [My bold. "texts to which they most respond" is what in practice editors / judges mean when they say "best" ... There is no such thing as an objective Best in poetry. -- Glenn]

[...]

What seems to me more disturbing, actually, is the idea anyone would have that a prize, whether it’s the Nobel or Jimmy’s Crush List, represents some kind of “objective” or “impartial” validation. That isn’t how prizes work – it’s the other way around: the winner validates the prize. Or not, as the case may be. Consider, for example, the Oscars. Does anyone imagine that giving the Best Picture award to a film such as Rocky or Chicago or Out of Africa means that these celluloid dogs can dance? ... It’s this need for external validation that strikes me as sad, finally, though I’m sure I crave it just as badly as the next human being, maybe more. What makes it sad is what it says about how our culture doesn’t let us value the act of writing itself, for its own sake, as its own reward." [My bold -- GI]