From: "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>


> Well, having woken up to an exploding box, I'm not sure
> about where to reply, or if.
>
> Some general comments, Erminia seems to assume that
> theory, the death of the author, etc., is the "basis people
> compose poetry nowadays," and that "working poets"
> as Robin defines them are profoundly interested in these
> theories and write accordingly.That may be
> the case in Italy, I don't know. But here, it seems to me
> there's very little interest in theory among working poets,
> unless the theory happens to intersect or allow for development
> of the poet's enthusiasms, and then it might be more accurate
> to compare it to an 'influence,' being influenced by a theory
> or a particular theorist's work as one might be influenced by
> another writer's work.
>
> Robin is right too about criticism having left the realm of
> working poets in the sixties. Part of that is due to the developments
> in the academy, in which English majors split at the master's degree
> level into those who go on to a Phd, the 'terminal' degree for
> scholars of a particular literature or theorists, or into MFA programs,
> the 'terminal' degree for poets. But even in MFA programs, while
> some give more attention to theory and litcriticism, there are others
> that focus entirely on poetic practice (the only theory being perhaps
> implied in those choices of which practices and which poets). The only
> exception to this might be the Language poets, or maybe Allen
> Grossman, but generally, there's a split between writing poets whose
> theory and criticism is focussed on particular works and poetic practices
> and litcrit scholars who are discussing the latest from Fish and the
source
> of many of these thousands of new articles on Barthes that Erminia
mentions.
> It's the way of making a professional career in that particular field, but
> it is just that, a particular field in the academy, and partakes of the
same
> specialization that is found in much of the academy. And, generally, while
> poets may wander into those texts, feeling some necessity or interest
> to read them at some point, they wander away and continue with their
> instinctive muddling. In the heydey of the sixties, when Barthes and
> others were new, I think there was a kind of enthusiasm in the academy
> and among some writers that this would be some comprehensive newness,
> and I think the language poets in a sense originate out of that perhaps
> naivety. And it should be perhaps noted too, that this was a dream of
> ambition, of having again the same conjunction of poet and critic, the
definitive
> voice, that the Modernists aspired to, and which Eliot was for a time,
dominating
> both poetic practice and criticism. Hence, the appearance of such things
as
> the "highest" form of poetry, or the reduction of all issues of writing to
the
> question of "authorial intention." And I agree with Trevor's assessment
> that much of the theory is _afterwards_, a rhetoric elaborated from a text
> where the poet or novelist has already written the death of the author.
And
> also with Mairead's sense that theory can impose or curtail what might be
> written, naturally, it would have this ability, since theory itself is the
ghost
> of a text which it regards as a corpse, for theory thinks it alone is the
animating
> breath.
>
> Best,
>
> Rebecca
>
> Rebecca Seiferle
> www.thedrunkenboat.com
>
An extremely interesting mail, Rebecca.

And I agree on all points.

I can state that in the '70s round here (that's when I got out of the egg),
Italy, I was living in Florence at the time (late '70s) and yes, Italy was
very much under the influence of the French Nouveaux Philosophes, they were
in the air, they were God. Starting from Camus, Sartre, Bouvoir, Beckett,
obliged passages to get to them. I was called for a simultaneous
interpretation at a congress Critica O in Pisa with Lyotard, Umberto Eco,
Luis Prieto, Bonito Oliva and so and such, met them all and we had a great
time. Then it went cooling down. Nonetheless I can still recognize, for
example in some, like an ex-boyfriend of mine who is a movie director and
studied in Paris, that those who got very much in contact with these
philosophies are still imbued by them, him by Deleuze, the sacred attitude
he has toward the master. In the sense that they go back and back as if they
were the backbone of their existence and cannot let them go. As if they
could not _free_ themselves from them.

From my side, I think poetry, the way I see it, has nothing to do with all
this. Which might be a further step in analyzing society or in belonging to
a group. But they are distinct. As a matter of fact, the less philosophical
notions I have in my mind when I write, the better it is. The so-called
tabula rasa is needed in order to create.

And the same goes when I am writing a critical article on an artist. I have
to _listen_ to the artist in order to write on/about him. I cannot go like,
well Barthes said this, so now I will stick him inside this theory and make
him glitter in this sector. I try to invent something. It would be easier to
choose the School, and this is the technique I use when I do not know what
to write, but still have to.

This said, I like this passage of yours:

"since theory itself is the ghost of a text which it regards as a corpse,
for theory thinks it alone is the animating breath."

Cheers to life, anny