Way back in my twentiees my poems use to be full of "of"s . When I thought
about it, my theory was that I liked "of" because it rhymed with 'love'
(being implicit and not obvious)- and that was definitely probably the
unconscious personal need - spilling over "of" by "of" at the time.
Then I remember reading Allen Ginsberg somewhere in which he had a big
diatribe against the use of "of" in poems. I suspect that was the shadow of
Pound wanting to make words in poems as tough, clean and hard as carved or
cut wood - objects.
So naturally I began to practice not "of"ing my poems or feeling
self-conscious when I did. Now I "of" whenever it seems accurate - Pound,
Ginsberg or not.
But genuinely, Jill, I do think the poem goes better without the "of."
Stephen V
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Sure, wavering in favour of not of.
>
> J
>
>>> Thanks Stephen,
>>>
>>> I was 50/50 on the 'of'.
>> Now are you 51/49 in my favor or still in favor "of"??!!
>>
>> S
>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Jill
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 02:17 AM, Stephen Vincent wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like this very much, Jill - deep under- and over-currents here!
>>>> I would drop the 'of' in the last line.
>>>>
|