> Good point. Too many poets now write poems about writing poetry. (Geoff
> Page has a rule of thumb that in each collection only one poem can be
about
> writing.
> Andrew
>
No, actually: That would be some good subject still, as a
metapoetical/metaliterary task
(Luigi Pirandello is one of them, shirting from the general discourse about
the crisis of identity and that of the theatre, the individual's coordinates
and the
rules regulating stage performance, the self and the text (self-narration).
But now what poetry seem to be about is to establish the clan, naming name,
being
not only self-referential (that is ok, to me) but eteroreferential
of the friends of the circle (the premeditatedly invented one, created by
dropping names in
the text itself ). That should be drastically avoided for a matter of
seriousness.
The audience which buys the collection should really be feeling annoyed by
this:
their money (and genuine interest) deserves more that a calendar of
(processed) Saints...it is
like informing the readers of what will be the " secure" future fame of the
(supposed) movement/aggregation.
It is like saying "Mates, we created the reputation, not you with your
response : not the history of reception, than,
but history of imposition...
That is really bad: better to quote names of beggars met in the stet, than
names of other poets
(unless one is writing a powerful powerful lyric dedicated to someone). This
is not the case in most cases...
erminia
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|