On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:12:53 +1000, Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Jane, just a small point: orality is a big part of innovative poetry.
>Much of it plays around issues of performance and utterance, and
>attending readings reinforces this. I think it's one
>of the things that's poorly understood about contemporary innovative
>poetry, because it's thought of by those unfamiliar with it as too
>"intellectual" or "academic", whatever that means.
Alison, this is a marvellous example of misreading. In no way was I suggesting that innovative
poetry - by which I suspect you mean avant-garde in this context - lacks an oral tradition or is in
some way NOT oral. I was merely saying, in an innocent enough way, that I felt a return to the oral
tradition would do poetry no harm. By that, to be more carefully specific, I mean a return to
those things which exemplify the oral tradition: memory tags for the performer such as rhyme or
particularly powerful types of rhythm, repetition of words or images etc.; an emphasis on narrative
poetry rather than the currently more popular short 'lyric'; a bias towards modern mythologising,
and other characteristics of the epic. These are all my pet obsessions, of course, and you should
certainly not assume that by mentioning them I was somehow accusing the avant-garde of not
being 'oral' enough for my tastes! Indeed, I can't imagine how a poetry that tends to think of itself
as playing with language, first and foremost - as I understand it - could ever not be firmly linked
to such oral traditions. At least, that would be the ideal.
And Mairead, thank you for providing me with so much unexpected amusement. Who is Uncle
Tom Cobbley, indeed?!
JH
www.janeholland.co.uk
|