Rebecca Seiferle:
> And in thinking about it, I think it's because some of these elements, the
> personifications, the use of "sere," etc., are some of those that I dislike
> in contemporary poetry from the UK, a sort of persistence of Victorian
> verse as if modernism hadn't occurred. I would argue for instance for a
> more truly archaic word than "sere" which still has vestiges of romantic
> usage clinging to it, but, again, I was not so much snagged on a particular
> word. However, having said this, I think you may well be right, that the
> way to get around this particular issue in the translation is not by
> editting it out but by emphasizing it, by making the music even more
> discordant and thick, more dense. In other words by intensifying these
> characteristics in the text. So perhaps it's not that those dictions are
> there, but that they are not there enough. A little more volume, perhaps
Computer's acting up tonight, so I can't be as prolix as usual. Just to say
I absolutely take your point here, Rebecca: I think you're dead right. Mark,
if I remember rightly, said something much earlier in the conversation which
I interpreted along these lines, whether accurately or no. Anyway, having
already been softened up, I just concede to this putting of the case.
Of course, agreeing's one thing; actually achieving it's another. We'll see
. . .
Incidentally, I'll be on the road on and off from tomorrow: Dublin, Cork
again, then Boston (for six weeks or so), so may not be able to join in
much. But I hope to.
Best to all,
Trevor
|