Erminia:
>Poetry representing itself, self-fulfilling its needs and self-reflecting
>its own methodologies is an old habits of poets.
Yes, a truism, and quite different from saying that:
>>But theoretical use of language about language, that is
>>metalanguage, is poetry at its highest, poetry that criticizes itself
>>and its powers. As in the case of Cavalcanti's 'Donna me prega.'
. . . which sounds like a substantive claim.
>I think self-referential
>poetry is nowadays almost impossible not to find. Anyhow, the process was
>started as I said by Cavalcanti (‘Donna me prega’) and Dante, of course
>(Vita Nova). Shakespeare’s The Tempest was mainly a metacritic play.
>It was then continued in the ‘500, by the Italian Vittoria Colonna and her
>fellow poets.
>Metaphysical poets in England tended as well as to be self-referential, and
>Eliot fits in this tradition of self-referentiality perfectly well. Writing
>the way Eliot wrote was nothing but a reconstruction of his procedures and
>a formalizations of his own discourse.
You've simply provided a list of poets who are,
more or less often in their work,
self-referential. Since I never suggested that
there are no such poets, your list doesn't
constitute a counter-argument.
>This does not exclude that non-self-referential
>poets or poems are less valuable.
You've negatives in here as plenty as fleas on a
dog, and consequently I don't know what you mean
to say. Can you indicate, clearly, whether or not
you're withdrawing from your previous position
that "theoretical use of language about language
. . . is poetry at its highest"? I suspect as
much, but I wish you'd just come out and say so
directly if it's the case.
>Could you make an example or post a totally non-referential poem written in
>our contemporary post-modern times? Metalanguages are proliferating all
>over, and metacriticism flourishes too after them.
>I know, it is a nightmarish reality, this aesthetic world of poetry. But
>please, post me an authentic poem in the fashion of socialist literature,
>with a sincere eye to objectivity.
>Any poetry of the Self is a metapoem. If the poet is speaking of
>him/herself, he is speaking of him/herself as poet and thus he is writing a
>metapoem (with possible psychological chiasms)#
First you ask me to post a contemporary
non-referential poem, and then immediately
proceed to load the dice in advance. What do you
mean by "an authentic poem in the fashion of
socialist literature, with a sincere eye to
objectivity"? It sounds to me very much like
"anything which Erminia approves as an authentic
poem".
Then you pronounce that "any poetry of the Self
is a metapoem". Where did that come out of?
Humpty-Dumpty's Manual of Grand Generalizations?
You've certainly provided no supporting evidence
or argument.
>But look your style of addressing me is rather aggressive, telling me that
>I so peak nonsense.
On the contrary, I invited you to set my
suspicions at rest by justifying your earlier,
amazingly sweeping generalizations. I'm still
waiting. I'm still suspicious.
See what happens when you encourage the spirit of
rebellion in your humble acolytes, Erminia? They
might start to question your own authority which
you flourish with such aplomb.
>Are you trying to disappoint me so I suspend my contributions to this
>particular thread?
No, I'm trying, in vain, to get you clarify and justify your pronouncements.
>Is it not what you need, as a list owner, that is:
>poets talking and writing to this metacritic list about poetry?
Not necessarily. There have been many very
productive discussions here which have taken
quite different courses.
>Oh , Goddddddddddd. I little bit of more awareness of what the list is
>about would not be unwelcome: this is a self-referentialspace.
How is it, Erminia, that you appear to be the
only one here who truly knows "what the list is
about"?
>By the way,
>I define 'nipples' and 'lips' and something else (male) as 'turgid staff'.
Your private life's your own business.
To save you the trouble of checking back on the
thread, I'll excerpt my questions here again:
> >>>Are you suggesting that poetry which isn't explicitly
> >>self-referential is necessarily somehow deficient?
>. . .
> >>And have you sufficient familiarity with poetry in other languages
> >>to justify so sweeping a judgement? What
>about Du Fu? Basho? Daibhi
>>>O Bruadair? Homer? The world's traditions of
>'folk poetry'?
In eager anticipation,
Trevor
|