Hi Bill,
I would agree with Scott -- every poem is an intellectual exercise.
I think we must have muddled the act of writing with content
somewhere along the line . . .
It seems to be not so much a matter of what is personal in a poem
(Stevens writing very much around his personal notions of reality
and art) than it is about those antique things 'the humours', and
the extent to which these form part of a poem's content or tone.
Maybe . . . . ? Or perhaps the extent to which the poet reveals
his or her ego (in the psychiatric sense) within a poem?
For example, place the works of Stevens alongside those of
Ginsberg -- the difference seems obvious, but, now that I think
of it, quite tricky to describe. A question of the sober temperament
vs. the intoxicated? Bridled vs. unbridled? Self-censoring vs.
XXXX? These don't fully work for me somehow, although again
I'm not sure why. Seems too neat. Stevens can be pretty
unbridled and intoxicating in his own way, equally sensuous
and free-flowing.
Perhaps the emphasis in Douglas's phrase was 'exercise'
rather than 'intellectual'? You mean more of a personal necessity
Douglas? Don't all poets write from personal necessity?
Isn't it also possible for a tortured individual to specialise in
comic verse as opposed to tortured verse? Edward Lear . . .
There's a problem here in trying to second-guess an author's
mental state by their work, I think.
Andy -- not sure what we're (I'm) really talking about here.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|