On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Alaric Sumner wrote:
> T. Baker writes: - I actually don't know what a
> > thing is without a "performance", so I sneak off into quiet corners of
> > the house to mutter out loud if I want to really 'hear' anything. & as
> > soon as you do that - which I suppose only "performers" do, & critics
> > don't (& a whole bundle of poets I sometimes think) - you know that
> > whatever integrity a thing has goes through an utterly sensual world.
>
> Surely the visual 'world' is as intense (integrous) as the sonic world? Why
> invest in poetry this sense of performance? Does a newspaper require such a
> 'performance'? I am aware Ric took this out of context so I am not
> commenting on this passage, but developing from it (I hope).
- fair 'nuff, Alaric - I was quoting from T's personal post as - hopefully
- a partial antidote to the meagreness of one specific proposed approach
to reading, which had horrified me. In fact, I'd say that one crucial
difference between TB (as quoted) and SP (as quoted) is that one is
generous enough to take development such as that which you suggest, but
the other is self-obsessed, leads nowhere. R
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|