Hi Colin,
You write "topical refs are definately a hinderance..." and I want to
disagree! I want to come down on the side of today's poetry for today's
culture.
I guess what's written now "might" cause a problem in a century or so (if
the poem survives that long - and luck more than anything else helps
survival) but I think Willie Shakespeare wrote for his day - and, despite
the topical refs and words, we still explore and enjoy his plays and poems -
and I think 2002/3 needs us to do the same as Will did in 1602/3. I could
write: "Full-blooded poems for full-blooded readers - no anemic ones..." but
that may be going a tad over the top!
If I'm to think of people in 2102/3 browsing through TheWorks archives I'd
chuckle - but sense they'd have the nous to grasp what we're on about as
well. If they can't then I, myself, can't help them. Or if they still read
anthologies I guess it's the editor who may have to provide footnotes...
Bob






>
> >         "It means something now (if you live in the UK) but probably
>won't
> > in the future." Sorry to paste in but I find this a really interesting
> > comment. Having something topical can be strong at the expense of future
> > clarity. But where do we draw the line? Could we or should we avoid refs
> > that won't be understood in a hundred years? Quite often I read poems
>from a
> > hundred years ago. Topical refs are definitely a hindrance.
> >         (Not expecting answers so much as expressing an interest in the
> > issue.)
> >
> >         Colin
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf