What she said, Richard, please. Sounds fascinating.
Judy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Boulter" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 6:58 PM
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
>
|