Androo, who the hell is David?
Yours trooly, Joodee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Burke" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: snap
> And, yes, David, I would dearly love to read that.
>
> Andrew
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanna Boulter" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:58 AM
> Subject: Re: snap
>
>
>> Yes please, Richard, If and when you can lay your hands on it I'd find a
>> copy most interesting and instructive.
>>
>> joanna
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Richard Jeffrey Newman" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: snap
>>
>>
>> >>>I wonder if anyone has ever done some sort of study or
>> > theory-construction around this, namely the extent to which the *I* in
>> > a
>> > poem can be identified with the author<<
>> >
>> > I have always liked Sam Hammill's definition of the "I" in a poem,
>> > which
> I
>> > am paraphrasing here, since I am not where I can lay my hands on the
> book
>> > in
>> > which he did it: The "I" in a poem is the first person impersonal (or
>> > something like that). In other words, it is a first person speaker, but
> it
>> > is not autobiographical and, as such, is an invitation to someone other
>> > than
>> > the author to enter the poem and experience it as his or her own.
> Hammill
>> > goes on to say a good deal about the author's responsibility to and in
>> > that
>> > first person impersonal, but that I will not paraphrase. If someone is
>> > interested, though, I think I have somewhere, but not on this computer,
> a
>> > pdf of the essay in which he talks about this and I'll be happy to send
>> > it.
>> >
>> > Richard
>
|