Yeah, but look at what he's saying. If you think that he meant form as in
sonnet then he's saying that the meaning of a sonnet is an extension of the
sonnet form. Which is pretty much true--an extended syllogism isn;'t just a
rhetorical device, it's a way of structuring experience.
You ought to know very well what Bob meant--he spent a lifetime elucidating
it, and it has nothing to do with form in the sense that you use the word.
Meter, by the way, isn't form, it's a device.
But this is getting so crashingly boring that I'm on the verge of filtering
out your messages. You assimilate all challenges without answering them.
How about, as Steve Vincent suggested, you illustrate
something--anything--with your own practice in the form of a poem--one of
your own, please. Almost everyone else on this list, and certainly everyone
in this discussion, has put her/himself on the line repeatedly in the form
of snapshots--check the archive.
Mark
At 01:43 PM 9/1/2005, you wrote:
>His complete remark was, "Form is never more than an extension of content,
>and content never more than an extension of form." The summer before
>Creeley's death he and were talking about this remark and he told me how
>frustrated he was that the second half of what he said is so often ignored.
>
>Annie
>
>On Aug 31, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Mark Weiss wrote:
>
>>Let's also throw into the hopper Creeley's "form is nothing but the
>>extension of content," which I've always taken to mean that one discovers
>>form in the act of writing. This has nothing to do with fixed meter or
>>shape or precomposed rules of procedure.
>>
>>Mark
|