Hi Mairead,
Yes, it's because I liked the sample passage that I started thinking
about it. I got flashes of Stein and WCW; slight, but enough.
My notion of a similar experiment with poetry was to use a text which
has more (obvious?) possibilities for difference in interpretation.
Following on, maybe, from the recent conversation here about
translation, I'm constantly surprised by how differently others
interpret poems from my own experience. So, to provoke those
differences into an audio archive, struck me as an interesting
possibility: expressive, considered, playful, impassive, with the
semantic and affective beats striking variously in each instance. The
range of accents, ages, genders, qualities of voice, would be a bonus.
Best,
T
On 19 Jan 2005, at 19:15, Mairead Byrne wrote:
> Okay here's a problem. I really like this passage. To me it's a poem
> or better than a poem. I love all this stuff & the sound of
> everything
> & the proper names & manic instructions. The thought of 404
> individuals
> reading it is also marvellous: I will listen. I don't see how poets
> could be in any way better. I don't even see how poets reading poetry
> could be better. What am I missing Trevor? Is it just well, we're
> poets, so wouldn't it be fun if we got together and did this? But
> might
> recognisability take the fun out of it: or isn't part of the fun of
> this
> just simple human curiosity & the differences within the recognisable
> range of human voice? It's an interesting thing. Maybe if I go there
> I'll be able to answer my own questions.
> Mairead
|