Carl Wrote: If a novice were to happen to use some of her lines by a
theoretical coincidence, in all likelihood the result would be telliness.
um, sorry, but the above doesn't doesn't make sense unless it is 'ok' for
one person to describe things in a certain way and not for another to do so
in exactly the same words - are we saying it's ok just because one is a
'made' poet and the other a novice? I think not.
I odn't necessarily disagree with your discussion, but the above doesn't
hold together for me.
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Reimann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 7:20 PM
Subject: poetics: telliness discussion
> Mike:
> > Why should it be that we object to this telliness in those places
> > where it disturbs?
>
> The polished poet isn't telly. For example, I don't consider Akhmatova
> "telly". If a novice were to happen to use some of her lines by a
> theoretical coincidence, in all likelihood the result would be telliness.
> Coherence is really key. Things need to lead to and to draw from other
> things within the poem. The polished poet's poems are coherent and
> beautiful. Telliness awkwardly bypasses communication with the reader,
> short-circuits the message. If the purpose of sharing is critique, then
> I object, or note, when I think the author should have tried harder to
> communicate with the reader.
>
> Telliness is like a joke in which the punchline is introduced with
> "Here's where you're supposed to laugh." Telliness is like saying to the
> reader, "I'd like to communicate the following idea or fact. I'm not
> sure how to introduce it, I don't know how to give it a sound grounding,
> I'm not sure how to figure out a way to root this idea in imagery and
> other development, but it's important to me and I feel something when I
> think of this idea, and I hope you will empathize with me, because
> surely it's an important idea: here it is."
>
> Carl
|