Dear Mike,
I haven't seen the crit concerned here, so my comments do not refer to
that, but, in general, I would say there is definitely a fad these days for
clipping words until a poem reads like telegraphese. Quite simply, it's
silly -often a little word (O, those articles!) is needed for the flow of
the line. I sometimes wonder if the clippers read the lines aloud, or if
they do, if they really listen.
I get the impression sometimes that some revisers think you are charged by
the word. Poetry is not about expressing something in the fewest possible
words.
Kind regards,
grasshopper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: Re Bang - Christine
Hello Christine,
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Other
people have made similar comments about other poems and I begin to realise
that my style is definitely a lot more wordy than many people write in
themselves, or even like to read. Conversely, I sometimes feel when I read
work posted on the list or in magazines that it has been cut back so far
that thereīs not much more than a list of images. In the end I guess this
just comes down to individual taste and preferences. Some of the cuts you
suggest here, especially in the first stanza, feel to me as if they would
break up the rhythm and flow. I was aiming at a rather excited, breathless
speaking voice. But perhaps more interesting than the virtues of specific
cuts in this poem is the general question of just how bare/ minimalist/
precise a poem needs to be. I donīt want to be misunderstood as advocating
pointless repetition or strings of adjectives, but I would like to ask this;
can words be used purely to carry the rhythm of the line and for the
pleasure of the sound their letters make in combination with other words? Is
it justifiable to use a redundant word purely for its musical quality? I
would be interested in hearing any opinions on this point.
Best wishes, Mike
|
