Dear Bob,
I agree. After all, as someone remarked: What has posterity ever done for
me?
Kind regards,
grasshopper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: new sub : Winter Tips (response to David Anthony's "Warming")
> 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
|