Mike,
All due apologies for levity. The bit in your earlier message that
diverted me was this: "for me, the object is prelinguistic, the language
and the poem just means of getting there." Not sure I can quite follow
your further distinction between means and verbal artefact - does this
really bear scrutiny? Wouldn't it boil down to someone saying, look,
this doesn't work because the means is insufficiently wrought (i.e.
artefactual)? Can you specify further what mean by "means"? Are we
talking about poetics or about aesthetic ideology? (and does *that*
distinction really hold water?)...
Loads of questions thereupon arising...but nice to hear a new voice in
the current dwindledom of britpo...
Best,
Jeremy
|