There's a confusion here again between Christina and me. In poetry as
elsewhere every letter counts. But even Christina and i get confused!
BW
Christine

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sally Evans [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 13 November 2002 20:29
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Re Bang - Christine
>
> yeah, but "all great poets" decided what to do for themselves, didn't
> follow slavish fashions about not using ings, thes, shards, mysteriouses,
> etc!
> SallyE
>
>
> on 13/11/02 6:57 pm, Christina Fletcher at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>
>
>       I'm not sure that I agree with what you've said about a fad for
> clipping words, Hopps.  I imagine that all great poets often clipped back
> ruthlessly.  You've only to look at the original drafts of The Waste Land
> to see how much Eliot discarded to have some idea of how willing he was to
> change and/or eliminate things.  I think poetry's probably a bit like
> painting: preciousness and preconception are major obstacles.  It would
> seem logical to try to express things as concisely and well as you can
> since everything's influenced by what surrounds it.  Perhaps more to the
> point than the idea of fads is that every word should have a function and
> contribute to rather than obscure what the writer's trying to say.  I'd
> suggest that most of us don't achieve this but perhaps it should be what
> we aim for?  Perhaps something either works or doesn't, regardless of
> writing theory.  Do you remember the lin! e in Amadeus when Mozart said
> there were just as many notes as the music needed?  I reckon there are
> just as many painfully verbose poems about as there are over-clipped ones.
> Perhaps learning to clip back is an important part of the learning
> process?  Perhaps the next stage is to learn what to put back again?
>       bw
>       christina
>
>
>
>
>               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
>
>
>
>
>
>