>>I have detected here, I believe, some misapprehension as to the kind
>>of meaning a poem generates. I have not had the chance to follow it
>>up because that came, in my analysis, later.
>>
>>Before thinking about the trenches for vegetables, it is necessary
>>to clear brambles, consisting - for me - of highly suspect ideas
>>like self / ego / id and the notion that "avant" and "academic"
>>denote anything.
Yes, and crucially, I think, the first thing that needs to be clear in any
debate about poetry is: what do each of the people think language is?
If this isn't clearly questioned from each perspective, then clashes on
other subjects - what a poem is for, what an audience might be - essentially
root themselves in conflicting notions of language which aren't then
thrashed out but remain stuck.
For me, I tend to think that we are built by language, that language is a
kind of forceful network of fleshy tunnels between us, and so a poem (like a
spoken statement) is an opening up to the various tunnels running around but
(unlike spoken statements) it is printed more permanently and may be
re-written so encompasses time. So if i were to disagree with someone whose
statements were based on a notion of language as material that could be
crafted like clay, then this would be why...
As for the mythical self, well, it's a manner of speaking...
|