I was always being told off for using "poetry words" on a course I was on
and maybe they were right but but.....I also like the musical quality and
sounds that words have like sparkle and tinkle and flowing and short sharp
words like ice and bang and shot. Words are words with sounds as well as
meaning and fashion comes and goes and if we like the word and it fits the
piece that we are writing then let it be is my tuppence worth. Sally j
>From: Bob Cooper <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine (I mean Mike)
>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:30:32 +0000
>
>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
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|