Hi Mike (and all...)
You write, Mike:
Is it justifiable to use a redundant word purely for its musical quality? I
would be interested in hearing any opinions on this point.
I'm tempted to say an emphatic no! But I'm not sure what you mean? Could you
give an example?
Bob
>From: arthur seeley <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:38:58 -0000
>
>Hear,hear! Arthur.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "grasshopper" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:19 PM
>Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine
>
>
>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
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
|
