... we might as well shut up. If there is a kind of poetry for
which sound strictly doesn't matter, a "pure" textual play
of material(ised) concepts (and why not), then there's no
_intrinsic_ reason to read it out loud -- though there might be
practical, social reasons for doing so. No readings, no audio
recordings.
But I have witnessed Mac Low, Retallack and Fisher read,
and have heard Cage read on tape. An atavism, perhaps.
Can one read to oneself, silently, entirely
without regard to one's auditory acquaintance with the
language?
-- Thanks to everyone who has commented directly or
indirectly on my recent fumblings. I will come back to
some of their remarks when I have a little more time
and energy. I don't think I meant what what was
generally understood by "fussy": my fault entirely.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|