Well, in a sense I suppose that this is not a text in various voices,
but I do see in this poem a sort of Browning-esque ventriloquism that I
don't see in his most recent poems like "Meeting" and, to a lesser
extent, "Death." But you're probably all sick of me now, speaking of excess.
Alison Croggon wrote:
> I see your point George, and it's interesting. There _is_ a difference, the
> poetic of the dialogic form itself, which might be what makes me flinch back
> from the poetry in ways I simply don't from the plays. Because the poem is
> not a text in various voices (to take these two examples - of course there
> are monologues as well) and is not a text designed to have a fuller
> embodiment in the voices and beings of actors, the space of a stage, &c, it
> has to create all of its reality, all of its silences, all of its dynamic,
> in the language on the page. And there is more to do...
>
> The "radical uselessness" of course can equally apply to the plays, and to
> how all art is deadened by an instrumental attitude towards it - if it is
> art, it is always in excess of such desires. Maybe my problem in the poems
> is to do with that very lack of excess, whereas something in the form of the
> plays permits (for me) that quality to exist there.
>
> All the best
>
> A
>
> Alison Croggon
>
> Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
> Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
>
>
>
--
George Hunka
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ghunka.com
|